2013 April TCC Sub 1 Final

AGENDA - BACKGROUND
TANK CAR COMMITTEE

SUBCOMMITTEE 1

Kansas City, MO
April 24-25, 2013

Index
Subcommittee 1 Tank Car Committee Docket
Docket Subject Discussant Group Notes Pg.
T5.27 Discuss Requests for Extended Life Dorsey Sub. 1 1
T10.7.5 Bottom Outlet Performance Student M/GDE 4
T15.1 AAR Circular Letters Dorsey Sub. 1 10
T31.2 Recommended Practice for J oint Design Radar A/C Proposal 22
T35.8
Evaluation the Performance of Half
Height Head Shields
Dorsey M/GDE 29
T50.34.2
Consider Requirements for Installation
of Surge Suppression Devices
Reiner A/C 30
T50.49 AFFTAC Thermal Model Sbragia A/C 34
T50.54
Review of the design and performance
of Vacuum Relief Valves
Perez A/C 41
T50.56
Safety Relief Devices Exposed to
Commodity Surge
Student M/GDE

48
T50.57
Effects of Environmental Harmonics on
Safety Relief Devices
J achim M/GDE 49
T55 Service Trials Dorsey A/C 52
T59 Tank Car Research Program/NTSB
Treichel/F
RA
Sub. 1 59
T59.1 Government Regulations
FRA/Gagn
on/
Freeman/N
TSB
Sub. 1

73
T59.2 Tank Car Reliability Research Byrne M/GDE 81
T60.10.1
Tracking the Application of Reflective
Material and Constant Contact Side
Bearings to Tank Cars
Dorsey Sub. 1
Information Only
Status Update
86
T60.4.2
Review Stencil Requirement for
Thickness Testing
Dorsey Sub. 1 88
T65.8
Thermal Protection Research &
Modeling
Treichel Sub. 1 91
T65.8.1
Thermal Contribution Properties of
J ackets
J . Sbragia Sub. 1 91
T79.3.1
Designation DOT130AW for New Car
Class
Student Sub 1 108
T79.3.2
Consider New DOT113A90W
Specification
Student Sub 1 119
T79.20.27 Review of Richmond Built Stub Sills Whelan M/GDE 123
T80.4
AAR Hazardous Materials (BOE)
Committee Liaison
Student Sub. 1

129
T87.6
Develop Standards for Non-Pressure
Cars Transporting Ethanol and Crude
Oil
Dorsey Sub. 1 Information Only 135
T87.6.1
Proposed Pressure Relief Valve
Requirements for Ethanol and Crude
Oil Tank Cars
Dorsey Sub. 1 136
T90.20
Integrity of Threaded Top Load/Unload
Connections
Student M/GDE 137
T90.23
Consider Revision of A8.1.3 Alternate
Flow Capacity
Dorsey A/C 145
T90.24 Review of Appendix A 1.2 Approvals Dorsey A/C 148
T92.14.1
Consider Permanent Marking for AAR
Class Cars
Byrne Sub.1 151
T92.17
Review Stencil Requirements for Tank
Cars
Dorsey A/C 155
T93.19.1 Review Paragraph D6.2 and E4.3.5.3 Warner M/GDE 156
T93.20
Review Appendix D for Compliance
with Current 49 CFR 180 Inspection
Requirements
Dorsey M/GDE 163
T93.22 Alternatives to Qualification Markings Mullins M/GDE 165
T94.1.4 Review Appendix E 4.1.6 Dorsey M/GDE 167
T94.11.1 Grounding Requirements for Tank Cars McLeod M/GDE 169
T94.21.4
Review Manway Cover Design for
Non-Pressure Cars
Dorsey M/GDE 173
T94.21.5
Review of Hinged and Bolted
Manways
Sandheinrich
M/GDE 179
T95.7.1-95
Consider New Steels for Tank Car
Tanks
Hybinette M/GDE 181
T95.7.3
Consider Modifications to Current Steel
Specifications
Hybinette M/GDE 188
T146 Tank Car Committee Meeting Schedule Dorsey Sub. 1

196
T147
Subcommittee Structures and
Procedures
Fronczak Sub. 1
Updated TCC
Members
Need to Update
Sub Committee
List
200
T200-124.1
Proper Bar Configuration for GATX
Underframe Cars
Dorsey M/GDE 206

Page 1
April 2013 Docket: T5.27
Sub. 1
Discuss Requests for Extended Life

Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that AAR continues to receive extended service
request. Some proponents have asked if training cars can receive extended service. TCC agreed to
have K. Dorsey send an official request to EEC to see if training cars can receive extended service.

At the J uly 2007 meeting, it was reported that the TF met on J uly 18, 2007 and a preliminary list of
desired information was drafted. The committee added Determine if extended life should be allowed
for tank cars to the charge of the task force. The TF force is anticipating having a proposal for the
October 2007 meeting. J P Gagnon and H. Gassen have been added to the TF. The discussion of
general requirements will be moved to the executive session.

At the October 2007 meeting, K. Warner discussed the TF progress to date. He asked that the TF
charge be amended to include the development of a risk matrix to determine the suitability of cars for
extended service. The committee agreed to this request.

At the J anuary 2008 meeting, J . Sbragia gave a presentation of the requirements being proposed for
extended service requests. An e-mail ballot will be sent shortly after the meeting for acceptance of the
proposal. A copy of the presentation will be sent with the ballot.

At the April 2008 meeting, K. Dorsey updated the committee on the status of the extended service
proposal. The committee agreed to the proposal but noted that no TIH product would be approved for
transport in cars that received extended service.

At the October 2008 meeting, it was mentioned that wording on extended life on tank cars in the
office manual needs to reviewed. It is intended that P. Kinnecom will being used as an ITP to
evaluate the packages.

CPC-1193, Requirements for Extended Life Recommendations was published 9/25/08. Comments
are due by 10/25/08. Please send comments to Kdorsey@aar.org.

(Staff note: This issue is being handled by the executive committee and is shown for general
information.)

At the J anuary 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that feed back is needed from the EEC on how cars
will be designated/marked for extended life service. COD pending reply from EEC

At the April 2009 meeting, CPC-1193 has been published. AAR is waiting on an answer from ARB on
whether or not the cars should be marked. COD

Page 2
Sub. 1

At the J uly 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that it is a requirement to register any extended life car
in UMLER; however this information is not available to the personnel at the loading rack. Since this
information is not available the following motion was made:
The committee that effective October 1, 2009, tank cars already approved for extended service
would have until J anuary 1, 2012 to stencil the tank car EXS applied to the right side of the built
date in letters at least 2 high. New tank cars must have the stencil EXS applied to the right side
of the built date in letters at least 2 high at the time of approval. NOTE: CP is recorded as a
negative vote on this matter.

At the October 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that extended life applications are to be first
reviewed by the EEC and then by the TCC. During the executive TCC in J uly the EXS stencil
proposal was approved. The proposal can be found under the J uly 2009 meeting update.

At the J anuary 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that from the Arbitration & Rules Committees
(ARB) viewpoint the registration on extended life cars in UMLER is sufficient. The 2010 Office
Manual of the AAR Interchange Rules does not provide any information in regard to extended life
specifically for tank cars. It was mentioned that Rule 88 (Mechanical Requirements for Acceptance)
within the Office Manual needs to reference M-1002. Transport Canada and members of the Tank
Car Committee (TCC) feel that the EXS extended service stencil on extended service tank cars
provide several benefits. The committee agreed to publish CPC-1194 Final Requirements for
Extended Life Recommendation in Appendix Y within the Manual of Standards and Recommended
Practices, M-1002, C-III, Specifications for Tank Cars. K. Dorsey will discuss with the ARB
committee the EXS extended service stencil that would be applied to tank cars approved for
extended service.

At the April 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the ARB Committees preferences to keep extended
life requirements the same for all car types. They do not want tank cars approved for extended
service stenciled with EXS. The docket was further discussed during the Executive TCC meeting
on April 22
nd
.

At the J uly 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed mirroring the requirements for extended service to
that of rebuilt status requirements in regard to tank cars. A motion was made, seconded, and passed to
have AAR send out to the industry for comment a CPC which would recommend modify CPC-1194
to include the same requirements for rebuilt status as what is currently written for extended service.
TCC requested that the comment period be extended longer than the typically 30 day window in
order to discuss with the industry at the October TCC meeting. A recommendation will be passed to
ARB from the Tank Car Committee once a final decision has been made

At the October 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that AAR will draft a CPC which will recommend
to include the same requirements for rebuilt status are currently required for extended service in
CPC-1194. COD

At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the recent extended service request AAR has
received and the need to add EXT as a delineator to the consolidated stencil in Appendix C. COD

Page 3
Sub. 1

At the April 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that AAR needs to add the EXT designator to
Appendix C within MSRP Section C Part III M-1002. The EXT delineator applies to tank cars
only. COD

At the J uly 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that the extended service designator is EXS not
EXT. This mark applies to extended service tank cars only. COD

At the October 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that AAR will be adding the extended service
designator EXS to Appendix C. This designator will be for tank cars only.

At the J anuary 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that this docket will remain open pending the
rewrite of Appendix C in M-1002.

At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that railroad tank cars built prior to J uly 1, 1974 have
a 40 year life unless approved for extended service and tank cars built after J uly 1, 1974 have a 50
year life. Therefore extended service request will end J uly 1, 2014. This docket will remain open
pending a rewrite of Appendix C of MSRP Section C Part III (M-1002).

At the J uly 2012 meeting, the ESS marking will go into appendix C during the write of M-1002. It is
anticipated that 2014 will be the last extended service request. Training tank cars might be
something we want to address and allow more than 50 year life. K. Dorsey will determine what the
rules are on training cars are and distribute them.

At the October 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that extended life program will no longer exist after
J uly 1, 2014. Tank cars built after J uly 1, 1974 have a 50 year life as built.

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that AAR continues to receive extended service
request. Some proponents have asked if training cars can receive extended service. TCC agreed to
have K. Dorsey send an official request to EEC to see if training cars can receive extended service.

CURRENT TF: K Warner (Chr), H Gassen, J P Gagnon, D Meyler, J Byrne, J Sbragia (co-Chr), K
Dorsey, S Lauver, T Waggoner

TF CHARGE: Determine if extended life should be allowed for tank cars and if so what documents
should be used to make the determination.

R EFERENCES: P Kinnecom 7/9/07X2, 7/10/07, 7/31/07; J Sbragia 2/22/08, 2/28/08, 3/7/08; K
Dorsey 3/7/08

Page 4
April 2013 Docket: T10.7.5
M/GDE
Bottom Outlet Performance

Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, P. Student stated that the TF plans to have a final proposal by the April
2013 TCC meeting.

This docket was opened to review multiple incidents where unsecured BOV operating handles have
moved to the open position during transportation. Initial investigation of several incidents seem to
indicate that valves that have opened during transportation are due to vibration. The TF needs to
investigate ways that valves can be secured so that environmental conditions close rather than open
valves.

At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the recent investigations involving bottom outlet
valves where unsecured operating handle moves to the open position due to vibration. The TCC
agreed to form a TF to review the securement methods of the operating handle keeping in mind the
current environment conditions. TCC will seek participation on this TF during the April 2011 TCC
meeting.

At the April 2011 meeting, the following individuals were added to the Task Force: R. Spring, R.
Broch, J . Becherer, D. Foley, and N. Krzanwsky

At the J uly 2011 meeting, no report provided.

AAR received the following email on 9/29/2011 from P. Student
At the T87.6 (a new executive committee task force) meeting the task force was asked to investigate
improvements in bottom outlet protection.

Bottom Outlet Valve performance
The task force was reminded of Safety Advisory 2009-2, Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday,
October 16, 2009 / Notices Page 53321

Several topics were developed as potential issues:
Use of the valve and communication to the loader/unloader as to operating it
Valve repair with valve no entirely returned to original condition, improperly adjusted stops
Proper identification of valve operation on the tank car.
Possible vibration problems on extended operating stems to the side
Handles in general, overly robust, failure of breakage groove
Over torqueing valve to open / close causing operating stem to twist and/or bend

Bottom Outlet Protection Performance
Question is the current design requirement of a 1:3 slope skip protection sufficient. Should design
include a performance requirement similar to that recently developed for top fittings protection?

TF Charge: To investigate bottom outlet operating mechanisms, identify styles that are susceptible to
allowing the valve to open under accident and non-accident scenarios and make recommendations.
To investigate current bottom outlet protection requirements, determine opportunities to enhance
protection and make recommendations.

Page 5
M/GDE

At the October 2011 meeting, P. Student reported on the new charge assigned to the TF which was
outlined in the docket. The charge includes the investigation into the bottom outlet operating
mechanism and bottom outlet protection requirements. COD

At the J anuary 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the recent NTSB recommendation to FRA and
AAR to improve bottom outlet valve performance in accidents. The NTSB recommendation stated
that the Tank Car Committee is to assist the FRA and PHMSA in requiring that bottom outlet valves
used on all non-pressure tank cars remain closed under impact forces to the valve and operating
handle during accidents. P. Student handed out the 49 CFR requirements for bottom outlets during
the meeting and pointed out that 179.200-17(a)(4) which states the valve operating mechanism for
valves applied to the interior of the tank, and outlet nozzle construction, must insure against the
unseating of the valve due to stresses or shocks incident to transportation. It is unclear at this time
why there is not a similar requirement for external bottom outlet valves.

T. Treichel is to provide a draft report on bottom fitting releases and effectiveness of protection to P.
Student.

Staff Note: K. Dorsey will send out the link to the NTSB report to the Tank Car Committee once it
becomes available.

AAR received the follow update via email 4/2/12 from P. Student
The task force is considering 3 charges: strength of the attachment of the BOV and outlet chamber
reference the shear plane, review the strength of the skid, and bottom outlet operating mechanism
allowing BOV to open in accident and non-accident situations.

1. The following were developed as problems with ensuring proper closure of the bottom out let
valves.

Several topics were developed as potential issues:
Use of the valve and communication to the loader/unloader as to operating it
Valve repair with valve not entirely returned to original condition, improperly adjusted stops
Proper identification of valve operation on the tank car.
Possible vibration problems on extended operating stems to the side
Handles in general, overly robust, failure of breakage groove
Over torqueing valve to open / close causing operating stem to twist and/or bend

2. NTSB issued recommendation R-12-6 to PHMSA on Mar 2, 2012.

Require that all bottom outlet valves used on newly manufactured and existing non-pressure tank
cars are designed to remain closed during accidents in which the valve and operating handle are
subjected to impact forces. (R-12-6)
Current regulations appear to cover the NTSB recommendation for internal valves. 179.200-17
Bottom Outlets

Page 6
M/GDE

(4) The valve operating mechanism for valves applied to the interior of the tank, and outlet
nozzle construction, must insure against the unseating of the valve due to stresses or shocks
incident to transportation.

3. There appear to be 2 styles of BO operating mechanisms where failure of of the breaking pin
securing the operating handle allows the handle to open the valve in non-accident
situations. The second was a long, appears to be 24", attached to an external ball BOV and
operates in the transverse plane.

4. Failure of the breaking pin design to keep the valve handle in the closed position has resulted
in releases in both accident and non-accident situations. Possible solutions:
- remove handle during transportation
- limit strength of materials of handle
- require handle to have an engaging mechanism to operate the valve
- some combination of the above
- require stem to accommodate a socket or extension to operate, no handle
- use a handle that folds on itself, much like the current supplied lug wrench
- others

At the April 2012 meeting, P. Student provided an overview of this docket via a PowerPoint
presentation. A comparison was made between attachment strength BOV to saddle versus BOV to
extension. The TF has to still review the design of skid and the bottom outlet operating mechanism.

The following individuals will be added to the TF: J ulie Bart, Mike Clark, Scott Murray, Todd
DeKoning, Kirk Warner, Chris Wyler, Rick Weinstein, Larry Loman, and Mike Richardson

At the J uly 2012 meeting, no report for TF work.

At the October 2012 meeting, P. Student stated that the TF is looking at different options to dis-
engage the bottom outlet operating handle prior to placing the tank car into transportation. L. Loman
stated that Appendix A will need to be reviewed to allow for other operation options. Primary and
secondary closure requirements are also being reviewed to evaluate bottom outlet performance. TF is
looking at clarifying the following paragraphs in M-1002:

10.1.2.5 Any vertical extension of the discontinuity below the protective device must be
designed to break off without rupturing the tank or releasing lading. The protective device must
extend down to, or below, the level of the discontinuity or its designed breaking point.
For bottom outlets, the skid should extend down to the breakage groove or to the
extremity of parts comprising the equivalent of a breakage groove.
For washouts and blind flange closures, the skid should extend down to the bottom of the
studs attaching the bottom closure.
For sumps or other discontinuities not exempted in paragraph 10.1.1

Page 7
M/GDE

10.1.2.8 Bottom outlet valve handles, unless stowed separately, must be designed to either bend
or break free on impact, or the handle in the closed position must be located above the bottom
surface of the skid.

AAR received the following TF proposal via email from P. Student 1/11/2013:
T10.7.5 Bottom Outlet DRAFT 1-13-13

Existing CIII Appendix E; For bottom discontinuities not excluded above, a protective device
must be designed as follows:
10.1.2.8 Bottom outlet valve handles, unless stowed separately, must be designed to either bend or
break free on impact, or the handle in the closed position must be located above the bottom surface
of the skid.

Proposed
10.1.2.8 Bottom Outlet Actuation

10.1.2.8.1 For cars ordered built new before J anuary 1, 2014, bottom outlet valve handles, unless
stowed separately, must be designed to either bend or break free on impact, or the handle in the
closed position must be located above the bottom surface of the skid.

10.1.2.8.2 Cars ordered built new on or after J anuary 1, 2014 equipped with bottom outlet valves
must have handles in a configuration specified below:
Handle that is stowed separately:
o Handles that are stowed separately must be equipped with a coupling as shown in Fig.
E31(a) and valves must be equipped with a coupling as shown in Fig. E31(b). Figure
for illustration purposes only.
o Provision must be made for handle stowage to prevent loss of handle due to stresses
or shocks incident to transportation.
Handle that is located completely within the skid:
o Handles can remain coupled to the valve provided they remain completely within the
skid when in the closed position, and be equipped with a closed-position locking
mechanism that requires a shear force in excess of TBD (e.g., diam) pounds at the
locking mechanism to operate the valve when locked.
Handle that is disengaged from the valve when in the closed position:
o Handles that are not stowed separately and located outside of the skid:
When in the closed position must be located above the bottom surface of the
skid, and be disengaged from the valve.
When in the closed position must be equipped with a means to prevent
unintended engagement with the valve.
When in the open position must remain engaged (coupled) with the valve.
Alternate means of actuation are permitted, if approved by the AAR Tank Car Committee
meeting the intent of these rules.
10.1.2.8.3 Fully open valve position must be clearly discernible from the side of the car when
viewing at the bottom skid level.
10.1.2.8.4 The valve operating mechanism must insure against the operation of the valve due to
stresses or shocks incident to transportation.

Page 8

Page 9
M/GDE

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, P. Student stated that the TF plans to have a final proposal by the April
2013 TCC meeting.

CURRENT TF: P. Student (Chair), G. Sandheinrich, A.D. McKisic, A. Richter, J . Perez, C.
Machenberg, K. Alexy, J . Sbragia, GE (TBD), R. Spring, R. Broch, J . Becherer, D.
Foley, and N. Krzanwsky, J . Bart, M. Clark, S. Murray, T. DeKoning, K. Warner,
C. Wyler, R. Weinstein, L. Loman, M. Richardson, L. Majors

TF CHARGE: To investigate bottom outlet operating mechanisms, identify styles that are
susceptible to allowing the valve to open under accident and non-accident
scenarios and make recommendations. To investigate current bottom outlet
protection requirements, determine opportunities to enhance protection and make
recommendations.

REFERENCES: P. Student (9/29/11, 4/2/12, 1/11/13)

Page 10
Sub. 1
AAR Circular Letters

Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the most recent circulars and CPCs published
relating to the tank car industry.
CPC-1245 Pamphlet 34
CPC-1246 Removal of Chapter 4 from M-1002
CPC-1247 which removed Class E Tank Car Facilities from M-1002 specification
CPC-1249 list of active certified and registered tank car facilities
CPC-1250 Appendix A Editorial Implementation
C-11859 Revision to Tank Car Commodities as Listed in Appendix A of MSRP Section J ,
Specification for Quality Assurance

Comment on CPC-1245: K. Warner stated that the updated pamphlet 34 is missing the gasket
information from T93.19.1 TF. AAR plans to review and ensure that Appendix E wording agrees
with Appendix D. A revised pamphlet 34 will be drafted and sent out for comment via CPC.

At the J uly 2008 meeting, it was reported that Final circular letter (CPC-1189 Maintenance Issues
with Richmond Tank Built Non-Pressure Stub Sills) was published J uly 2, 2008. K. Dorsey discussed
the changes that will take place in the publication process of the MSRP. The M-1002 will reflect the
date of 2007 however circular letters will be published as inserts to the manual. The changed pages
will indicate a later release date but a mechanism to differentiate material that has received regulator
incorporation from information not yet been incorporated by reference needs to be worked out.

At the April 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that AAR is working on a new CPC for the
suspension of CPC-1187. There are recent issues with national bolster. BNSF found some of these
bolsters being reconditioned which is not allowed. AAR is pushing to remove these bolsters from
service. CPC on top fittings protection will be issued for comment.

At the J uly 2009 meeting, K Dorsey reported on the recent published AAR Circular letters. He
discussed the recent CPC-1204, dated 5/15/09, Request for Comments on the Suspension of the
AAR Standard for Tank Cars Transporting Toxic Inhalation Hazard Commodities and Top fittings
Protection for Certain Non-pressure Tank Cars.

At the October 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the recent published AAR Circular Letters. He
discussed briefly the Early Warning on Columbus Steel Castings (CSC) bolsters manufactured
between Nov. 2003 and J uly 2004.

At the J anuary 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that an update on recent published AAR circular
letters will be made available at the April 2010 TCC meeting. K. Dorsey reported that AAR plans to
publish M-1002 one chapter at a time. Once all the necessary chapters are updated the next version of
the M-1002 manual will be made available.

At the April 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the recent published AAR circular letters which
were made available in the docket. K. Dorsey specifically discussed CPC-1211, CPC-1212, and
CPC-1213. Details on these three CPCs are provided below:

Page 11
Sub. 1
AAR Circular Letters (continued)

New Letters that have been published since the April 2010 meeting:
CPC-1211, dated 4/12/10, Suspension of the AAR Standard for Tank Cars Transporting Toxic
Inhalation Hazard Commodities and Top Fittings Protection for Certain Non-Pressure
Tank Cars
CPC -1212, dated 4/15/10, Request for Comments on the Revision of Appendices R, W, M, and Y of
M-1002
CPC -1213, dated 4/15/10, Suspension of the AAR Standard for Tank Cars Transporting Toxic
Inhalation Hazard Commodities and Top Fittings Protection for Certain Non-Pressure
Tank Cars
C-11212, dated 5/4/10, re: Implementation Sec E and S-486 Single Car Test
C-11215, dated 5/14/10, Implementation of Office Manual Rule 88 Revisions
C-11226, dated 5/24/10, Updates to Rule 88.A.16.c.2-STCC's
C-11255, dated 6/25/10, Listing of M-1003 Quality Assurance Certified Companies; Interchange
Rules Requirements
C-11256, dated 6/25/10, Registry of Companies Having Voluntary AAR Certification Per
Specification M-1003
CPC-1214, dated 6/29/10, Enhanced Exhibit B-2 (AAR Tank Car Committee Shop Evaluation) and
Exhibit B-3 (Registration for Class F, G, and L Facilities)
CPC-1215, dated 7/1/10, Certified Tank Car Facilities (Classes A, B, C, D) and Registered Tank Car
Facilities (Classes F, G, L)

At the J uly 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on a circular letter C-11269 published J uly 16, 2010 in
which the EEC is implementing an editorial revision to MSRP Section C, Standard S-2045 Remote
Monitoring Equipment, Installation. The circular doesnt address temporary RME devices. K.
Dorsey addressed his concern with temporary RME devices that could be installed with zip ties in
inconspicuous locations on tank cars. Currently only permanent RME devices must be entered into
UMLER. The TCC agreed that comments should be sent on behalf of the Tank Car Committee to the
EEC to have the word permanently removed from paragraph 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 within S-2045.
(Staff Note: AAR will look at paragraph 5.0 with respect to how the registration requirements will be
affected by this change)

At the October 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the most recent published CPCs. Below is a
list of those CPCs.

CPC# MA/EW# Subject Published
1218 0123 Inspection of Tank Car Stub Sills 10/1/2010
1219 Certified Tank Car Facilities (Classes A, B, C, D)
Registered Tank Car Facilities (Classes F, G, L)
10/12/2010

Page 12
Sub. 1

Letters that have been published since the October 2010 meeting:

Date
Circular
Number
Subject
12/21/2010 C-11363
Listing of M-1003 Quality Assurance Certified Companies; Interchange Rules
Requirements
12/21/2010 C-11362 Registry of Companies Having Voluntary AAR Certification Per Specification M-1003
12/21/2010 C-11355 Implementation of 2011 Rule Changes
12/17/2010 C-11352 2011 Field and Office Manuals of the AAR Interchange Rules effective J anuary 1, 2011
12/14/2010
CPC-
1220
Recommended Railroad Operating Practices for Transportation of Hazardous Materials
(OT-55-L)
11/22/2010 C-11349
IMPLEMENTATION Revision to MSRP Section G, WHEELS AND AXLES,
Specification M-107/M-208, Wheels Carbon Steel, Appendix C, Authorization for Class
D Wheel Test Allotment
11/12/2010 C-11347
IMPLEMENTATION of Revisions to AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended
Practices (MSRP), Section K, Railway Electronics-Part I, Recommended Practice RP-
9203, AEI READER EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
11/12/2010 C-11345
Solicitation of Comments-New Rule 115-Damaged and Defective Car Tracking
(DDCT)
11/10/2010 C-11339
Solicitation of Comments-Revision of Rules 69 and 74-Welding and Aluminum Plate
J ob Codes
11/1/2010 C-11338 AAR Intermodal Interchange Rules
10/26/2010 C-11330 Revision to Field Manual Rule 1-Care of Freight Cars
10/26/2010 C-11329 Version 7.1 of the Car Repair Billing Procedures Manual is Available
10/25/2010 C-11325 Solicitation of Comments: Field Manual Rule 46 Hunting Index Changes
10/25/2010 C-11324
Editorial Revision to MSRP Section G, Part II, WHEEL AND AXLE MANUAL, S-
659, Rule 1.4.7.4.14 Transcona Wheels
10/25/2010 C-11323
IMPLEMENTATION Editorial Revisions to MSRP Section G, Part II, WHEEL AND
AXLE MANUAL, S-659, Rule 1.8.9.1.1.4 and RP-633, Figure 4.19

At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the most recent published circular letters which
were provided in the docket. AAR plans to publish a CPC for Certification and Registered Facility in
the near future.

At the April 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the most recent published circular letters which
were listed in the docket. AAR plans to publish a CPC requesting comments on revisions to
Appendix M in the near future.

Page 13
Sub. 1

Letters that have been published since the January 2011meeting:
Date CPC # Type Subject
4/5/2011

CPC-
1228

Certified Tank Car Facilities (Classes A, B, C, D) and Registered Tank
Car Facilities (Classes F, G, L)
3/24/2011
CPC-
1227
Request for Comments on the Revision of M-1002 Appendix T
3/18/2011
CPC-
1226

Request for Comments on the Revision of M-1002 Chapter 1 Paragraph
1.3.16 and Chapter 2 Paragraph 2.5
3/17/2011
CPC-
1225

Implementation of Revisions to Appendices R, W, M and Y of M-1002
(Pt. 2)
3/16/2011
CPC-
1224
Implementation of Revisions to Appendices R, W, M and Y of M-1002
3/11/2011
CPC-
1223
MA - 130 Tank Cars Overdue for Compliance and Maintenance Activities
2/10/2011
CPC-
1222

Requirements for Extended Life or Rebuilt Status Recommendations from
the TCC to the EEC
2/8/2011
CPC-
1221
Supplement
to MA-085
Freight Cars Overdue for Compliance and Maintenance Activities

3/23/2011

C-11407
Solicitation of Comments on Proposed Revisions to MSRP Section C,
Standard S-226, Running Boards, Brake Steps, End Platforms, and
Switching Steps Other Than Wood
3/23/2011 C-11406
Car Repair Facility Labor Rate Effective April 1, 2011

3/10/2011

C-11401
Registry of Companies Having Voluntary AAR Certification Per

3/2/2011

C-11399
Solicitation for comments AAR MSRP Section J, Specification M-1003
proposed revisions.

3/2/2011

C-11398
Solicitation for comments AAR MSRP Section J, Specification M-1003
proposed revisions.

2/3/2011

C-11370 Air Brake Test Reporting Requirements-Rules 3.B.2 and 93.8

At the J uly 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the recent published circular letters. AAR plans to
publish a CPC requesting comments on changes to Appendix M of M-1002. Pat Whelan briefly
described the upcoming implementations for circular letters involving MAs and EWs. Current
rules will be implemented. Typically MAs have an effective period of 12 months. If the cars remain
in the advisory pool at the expiration of the allotted time, the cars will be upgraded to an Early
Warning. Typically EWs have an effective period of 90 days. If the cars remain in the Early
Warning at the expiration of the allotted time will be assigned a severity code of XX prohibited in
interchange.

Page 14
Sub. 1

Letters that have been published between April 1, 2011 October 1, 2011:

DATE Number TYPE SUBJECT
4/5/2011 CPC-1228
Certified Tank Car Facilities (Classes A, B, C, D) and Registered Tank
Car Facilities (Classes F, G, L)
4/13/2011 C-11413
IMPLEMENTATION Editorial Revision to AAR MSRP Section C,
CAR CONSTRUCTION -- FUNDAMENTALS AND DETAILS,
Standard S-286 Free/Unrestricted Interchange for 286,000 lb Gross Rail
Load Cars
6/6/2011 CPC-1229 EW - 5245 Tank Car End Platform Safety Railing Defects
7/14/2011 C-11479 Early Warning System Enforcement
7/26/2011 C-11483
Implementation of Revised AAR Manual of Standards and
Recommended Practices Section J , Specification M-1003
7/26/2011 CPC-1230
Requirements for Cars Built for the Transportation of Packing Group 1
and 2 Crude Oil, Alcohols n.o.s. (denatured alcohol) and
Ethanol/Gasoline Mixtures (T87.5)
8/26/2011 C-11500 MA - 132 Crossover Platforms Not In Compliance
8/31/2011 CPC-1231 MA - 134 Tank Cars Overdue for Compliance
8/31/2011 CPC-1232
Requirements for Cars Built for the Transportation of Packing Group I
and II Materials with the Proper Shipping Names "Petroleum Crude
Oil""Alcohols, n.o.s." and "Ethanol and Gasoline Mixture"
9/20/2011 CPC-1233
Request for Comments on the Revision of Chapter 2 and Appendices A,
B, C and D of M-1002

At the October 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the recent published circular letters. The
following CPCs were recently published: CPC-1234 Proposed revisions to Pamphlet 34, CPC-1235
Certified and Registered Facilities, CPC-1236 Inactive Certified and Registered Facilities, and CPC-
1237 Request for Comments on the Revision of Chapter 6 and Appendix M of M-1002.

P. Whelan also discussed AAR circular letter C-11479 titled Early Warning System Enforcement
which was published on J uly 14, 2011. This circular was provided to all AAR circular letter
subscribers. This circular announced the upcoming imposed schedule of enforcement set forth in
AAR Interchange Rule 125.

Page 15
Sub. 1

Letters that have been published between October 1, 2011 December 21, 2011:

Date Number Subject
10/10/2011 CPC-1234
Proposed Revision to Pamphlet 34 Recommended Methods for
the Safe Loading and Unloading of Non-Pressure (General
Service) and Pressure Tank Cars
10/10/2011 CPC-1235
Certified Tank Car Facilities (Classes A, B, C, D) and
10/10/2011 C-11509
Registry of Companies Having Voluntary AAR Certification Per
10/10/2011 C-11508
Listing of M-1003 Quality Assurance Certified Companies;
Interchange Rules Requirements
10/11/2011 CPC-1236
Inactive Certified Tank Car Facilities (Classes A, B, C, D) and
10/13/2011 CPC-1237
Request for Comments on the Revision of Chapter 6 and
Appendix M of M-1002
12/6/2011 C-11569
2012 Field and Office Manuals of the AAR Interchange Rules
effective J anuary 1, 2012

Early Warning Enforcement Circular Letter drafted by Jim Grady

CIRCULAR LETTER DRAFT TEXT

Subject: Early Warning Enforcement

To: All Subscribers

This follows on our Circular Letter C-11479 of J uly 14, 2011 concerning a phased in implementation
of an enforcement program for Early Warnings and Maintenance Advisories. You will recall that
one of the enhancements to the Early Warning (EW) System put into effect by Railinc was to
automatically impose the schedule of enforcement set forth in Interchange Rule 125. This change
progresses a Maintenance Advisory (MA) to EW status if the associated cars have not been
addressed after 12 months from date of issue. Similarly, ninety days following the creation of an EW
or ascension of an MA to EW status, any cars that have not been addressed will receive
Transportation/Condition code "XX" and not be eligible for interchange. Implementation of this
automated feature was effective on J uly 28, 20 II.

You will also recall that, mindful of the impact this action would have on the Industry, we developed
a phase-in approach for this change based on severity of the advisory and its age, involving resetting
of expiration dates of advisories.

In line with that program, the following Maintenance Advisories issued from 1996 through 2005 will
be elevated to Early Warning status on J anuary 1, 2012. These advisories will then be in effect for 90

Page 16
Sub. 1

days after which any cars remaining will become prohibited in interchange.

MA-34 Retrofit of Car Equipped with ABDX Valves (Phase II) (2 cars remaining)
MA-50 Tank Cars Overdue for Stub Sill Inspections (1 car remaining)
MA-57 Cracks and/or Securement Defects in Comer Castings (2 cars remaining)
MA-75 Tank Cars Overdue for Compliance and Mtc Activities (8 cars remaining)
MA-76 Brake Beam Binding on Truck Mounted Brakes Systems (1 car remaining)
MA-79 Tank Cars Recalled for Compliance and Mtc Activities (9 cars remaining)
MA-82 Recall/Inspection of reconditioned Side Frames (6 cars remaining)
MA-84 Tank Cars Overdue for Compliance and Mtc Activities (11 cars remaining)
MA-90 Inspection of Roller Bearings - Cap Screw Torque Values (332 cars remaining)
MA-95 Potential Low Lateral Bearing Assemblies (158 cars remaining)

Also in line with that program, on J anuary 1, 2012 the following Early Warnings with "Stop
Car" codes will have 90 days to complete the actions required in the subject advisories. Any cars
remaining in those EWs at the end of the 90 days will become prohibited in interchange.

EW-5145 Cracks in 100 Ton Buckeye Truck Bolsters (S-2-D) (64 cars remaining)
EW-5167 Tank Car Reinforcement Bar Inspection (7 cars remaining)
EW-5192
Tank Cars with Potential Cracks in End Platform Safety
Railings
(9 cars remaining)
EW-5210 Suspect Modifications - TCTX 100 - 250 (6 cars remaining)
EW-5211
3 Unit Spine Cars with Cracks in Hitch Reinforcement
Welds to the Top Surface Of Bottom Flanges
(1 car remaining)
EW -522 Defective Truck Bolsters on SDWX Cars (2 cars remaining)
EW-5228 Failed Cushion Unit Straps on Coil Steel Car Fleet (240 cars remaining)
EW-5231 Inspection and Removal of Suspect Wheel Sets (332 cars remaining)
EW-5232
Inspection & Removal of Turned (Re-Profiled) Suspect
Wheel Sets
(701 cars remaining)
EW-5235 Inspection and Removal of Suspect Wheel Sets - Sup 1 (29 cars remaining)
EW-5239 Tank Car End Platform Safety Railing Defects (24 cars remaining)
EW-5245 Tank Car End Platform Safety Railing Defects (22 cars remaining)

More detail on each of these advisories can be found on the AAR Circular Letter website
(http://aarcirculars.aar.org/circularPublic.aspx). MAs and EWs issued before December 2006 are
found in the Archives section.

Page 17
Sub. 1
The advisories shown below are excluded from this schedule at this time.
MA-124 - Maintenance Advisory for Rule 1 Incidents
MA-125 -' Maintenance Advisory for Rule 95 Incidents
MA-63 - Cars Overdue for Periodic Air Brake Testing

EW-5171 - Cars Overdue for Periodic Air Brake Testing

We will advise as the further advisories approach their threshold dates in subsequent Circular
Letters. Direct any questions or comments to me at jgrady@aar.org, or to Executive Director,
Rules and Standards Tom Stahura at tstahura@aar.org.

At the J anuary 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the recent AAR published circular letters which
were provided in the background. AAR also discussed the provided handout on AAR circular letter
C-11586 related to Early Warning Enforcement which basically states the schedule of enforcement
set forth in AAR Interchange Rule 125 for Maintenance Advisories (MAs) and Early Warnings
(EWs).

Letters that have been published between December 21, 2011 April 3, 2012:

DATE Number MA/EW SUBJECT
12/6/2011 C-11569
2012 Field and Office Manuals of the AAR Interchange Rules
12/13/2011 C-11579
IMPLEMENTATION Revision to MSRP Section L,
LETTERING AND MARKING OF CARS, S-920, AAR
COMPONENT IDENTIFICATION (CID) BAR CODE
STANDARD
1/6/2012 C-11586 Early Warning Enforcement
1/20/2012 C-11596
Editorial Revision to MSRP Section L, LETTERING AND
MARKING OF CARS, S-920, AAR COMPONENT
IDENTIFICATION (CID) BAR CODE STANDARD
2/29/2012 C-11627
Implementation of Revisions to MSRP Section C, CAR
CONSTRUCTION FUNDAMENTALS AND DETAILS Standard
S-2045, Remote Monitoring Equipment, Installation
3/1/2012 C-11630
M-1003 Certified Contractor Listings for both Mandatory and
Voluntary type contractors.
3/9/2012 C-11632 Car Repair Facility Labor Rate Effective April 1, 2012
3/19/2012 C-11635 Early Warning Enforcement
3/19/2012 C-11638
Solicitation for Comments, AAR MSRP Section C, CAR
CONSTRUCTION FUNDAMENTALS AND DETAILS, New
Specifications M-800 Hopper Car, Covered For Transport of
Oxidizing Commodities and M-801 Hopper Car, Covered
Pressurized During Unloading..."
3/26/2012 CPC-1239 MA - 135 Tank Cars Overdue for Compliance
4/3/2012 CPC-1238
Non-Accident Release (NAR) Reduction Task Force
Announcements

Page 18

Sub. 1

At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the recent published AAR circular letters which
were provided in the docket. CPC-1240 was published April 13, 2012 which provides a list of active
and inactive registered and certified tank car facilities. M. Forister provided a presentation on how to
find the MSRP A-1 document on the TTCI website. This document provided a list of all documents
contained in the Manual of Standards and Recommended Practice library and a list of Circular/CPC
Letters that have been issued subsequent to each manuals publication. This document is free to the
public, but it does not link to the actual manuals or circular/CPC letters.

The link to the MSRP A-1 document is http://www.aar.com/aar_standards/pdf/MSRP-A1.pdf

Letters that have been published between April 3, 2012 June 29, 2012:

Date Number MA/EW Subject
6/6/2012 C-11706
Solicitation for Comments Proposed changes to SECTION F,
SENSORS; Specification S-920: AAR Component Identification
(CID) Bar Code Standard; CEPM data requirements for side frames
and bolsters.
5/31/2012 C-11697 Office Manual 88 Revision-Increased Gross Rail Loads
5/24/2012 C-11682
Solicitation of Comments: Office Manual Rule 88-Extended Service
Status
4/20/2012 C-11654
Editorial Revision to MSRP Section L, LETTERING AND
MARKING OF CARS, S-920, AAR COMPONENT
IDENTIFICATION (CID) BAR CODE STANDARD
4/20/2012 C-11653
Implementation of Editorial Revisions to AAR Manual of Standards
and Recommended Practices Section G, Part II, WHEEL AND AXLE
MANUAL, Barcodes and Corrections
4/13/2012 CPC-1240
Tank Car Committee Certified Tank Car Facilities (Classes A, B, C,
D) and Registered Tank Car Facilities (Classes F, G, L)
4/3/2012 CPC-1238 Non-Accident Release (NAR) Reduction Task Force Announcements

Page 19
Sub. 1

Letters that have been published between June 29, 2012 October 4, 2012:

10/1/2012 CPC-1242

Recommended Railroad Operating Practices For Transportation of
Hazardous Materials (OT-55-M)
9/12/2012 C-11659 EW - 5265
Inspection and Removal of Suspect Greenbrier Wheel Sets---
Supplement 5
8/31/2012 C-11775

Proposed Revisions to AAR MSRP SECTION C, CAR
CONSTRUCTION FUNDAMENTALS AND DETAILS, Standard
S-226, Running Boards, Walkways, Brake Steps, and End
Platforms
8/30/2012 C-11781

M-1003 Certified Contractor Listing for both Mandatory and
Voluntary Type Contractors
8/7/2012 C-11753

Revised Circular -- Clarification for AAR MSRP, Section C-II,
Specifications for Design, Fabrication, and Construction of Freight
Cars, M-1001, Chapter 7 Fatigue Requirements for Tank Cars
7/26/2012 C-11740

Clarification for AAR MSRP, Section C-II , Specifications for
Design, Fabrication, and Construction of Freight Cars, M-1001,
Chapter 7 Fatigue Requirements for Tank Cars

7/13/2012 CPC-1241 Changes to Appendix M and Chapter 6 of M-1002
7/2/2012 C-11728

Implementation Editorial Revision to AAR MSRP Section C, Car
Construction Fundamentals and Details, Standard S-286
Free/Unrestricted Interchange for 286,000 lb Gross Rail Load
Cars

Page 20
Sub. 1

Letters that have been published between October 1, 2012 January 7, 2013:
12/12/2012 C-11862
Implementation, AAR MSRP Section C, CAR CONSTRUCTION
FUNDAMENTALS AND DETAILS, New Specifications M-800 Hopper
Car, Covered For Transport of Oxidizing Commodities and M-801
Hopper Car, Covered Pressurized During Unloading..."
12/12/2012 C-11861
Subject: 2013 Field and Office Manuals of the AAR Interchange Rules
12/11/2012 CPC-1247
Proposed Removal of Class E Tank Car Facility from Appendix B of M-
1002 (T91.21)
12/11/2012 C-11860 Q3 M-1003 CERTIFIED CONTRACTOR REGISTRY
12/11/2012 C-11859
Revision to Tank Car Commodities as Listed in Appendix A of MSRP
Section J , Specification for Quality Assurance
12/11/2012 C-11858 AAR M-1003 Basic Quality Assurance and Auditor Training Seminar
11/30/2012 C-11848
Implement Revisions to MSRP Section F, SENSORS, S-920: AAR
Component Identification (CID) Bar Code Standard New Field Bearing
Locking Plate Type
11/29/2012 CPC-1246
Removal and reservation of Chapter 4, Acceptability of Tank Containers
and Tank Trailers from the AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended
Practices, Section C, Part III, Specifications for Tank Cars (M-1002)
(T101.600.27)

10/16/2012 CPC-1244
Tank Car Committee Certified Tank Car Facilities (Classes A, B, C, D) and
Registered Tank Car Facilities (Classes F, G, L) T91.13
10/9/2012 CPC-1243
Request for Comments on the removal and reservation of Chapter 4,
Acceptability of Tank Containers and Tank Trailers from the AAR Manual
of Standards and Recommended Practices, Section C, Part III,
Specifications for Tank Cars (M-1002) T101.600.27
10/1/2012 CPC-1242
Recommended Railroad Operating Practices For Transportation of
Hazardous Materials (OT-55-M)

Page 21
Sub. 1

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the most recent circulars and CPCs published
relating to the tank car industry.

CPC-1245 Pamphlet 34
CPC-1246 Removal of Chapter 4 from M-1002
CPC-1247 which removed Class E Tank Car Facilities from M-1002 specification
CPC-1249 list of active certified and registered tank car facilities
CPC-1250 Appendix A Editorial Implementation
C-11859 Revision to Tank Car Commodities as Listed in Appendix A of MSRP Section J ,
Specification for Quality Assurance

Comment on CPC-1245: K. Warner stated that the updated pamphlet 34 is missing the gasket
information from T93.19.1 TF. AAR plans to review and ensure that Appendix E wording agrees
with Appendix D. A revised pamphlet 34 will be drafted and sent out for comment via CPC.

Letters that have been published between January 7, 2013 April 5, 2013
Date Number Subject
3/12/2013
C-11906
2012 Q4 M-1003 CERTIFIED CONTRACTOR REGISTRY
2/21/2013
CPC-1251
Implementation of Changes to Appendix A of M-1002
2/21/2013
C-11895
Implementation of Revisions to MSRP Section C, CAR CONSTRUCTION
FUNDAMENTALS AND DETAILS, Placard Related Standards S-229 and S-
2008
2/21/2013
C-11894
Solicitation of Comments on Proposed Revision to MSRP Section C-II,
Specifications for Design, Fabrication, and Construction of Freight Cars, M-
1001, Paragraph 2.1 Design Data
1/18/2013
CPC-1249
Tank Car Committee Certified Tank Car Facilities (Classes A, B, C, D) and
Registered Tank Car Facilities (Classes F, G, L) T91.13
1/18/2013
CPC-1250
Implementation of Changes to Appendix A of M-1002
1/18/2013
CPC-1245
Pamphlet 34 Recommended Methods for the Safe Loading and Unloading of
Non-Pressure (General Service) and Pressure Tank Cars (T9.2)
1/16/2013
CPC-1248
Removal of Class E Tank Car Facility from Appendix B of M-1002 (T91.21)
1/16/2013
C-11878
Solicitation of Comments: MSRP Section C, New Appendices E2 and G1 to
Standard S-2044, SAFETY APPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FREIGHT
CARS

Page 22
A/C
Recommended Practice for J oint Design

Recent Activity: See Below.

This docket was opened to discuss the recommendation to create a new appendix within MSRP C-III
for fluid sealing. The goal of the TF would include the review of basic philosophies and best
practices for fluid sealing. The result of this work would be a recommended practice, not a standard.

At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that this docket was opened to review the
industries best practices for fluid sealing. K. Dorsey and TF chair J . Rader will work on the TF
charge. TCC agreed to form a TF and will seek participation during the April 2011 TCC meeting.

At the April 2011 meeting, the following individuals were added to the Task Force: D. Prince, M.
Nunez, T. Sisto, R. Aliota, R. J achim, S. McQueen, A. Schaffer, S. Martin, D. Reid, C. Edmonds, R.
Spring T. DeKoning, P. Langley

At the J uly 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that the TF should have a proposal by the October TCC
meeting. The TF proposal is based on national standards and is expected to be performance in
nature.

At the October 2011 meeting, J . Rader discussed the TF working paper which is titled Guidelines
for threaded and bolted flange joint assembly. This document would provide guidance for the
proper assembly of threaded and bolted connections of service equipment to tank cars. The
document is intended to provide guidance for car owners and car repair shops and includes guidance
for the proper assembly of threaded and bolted connections of service equipment to tank cars. Also
included in this document will be a training section. Mr. Radar stated that this document will be
considered a recommended practice and if approved would reside in M-1002 as Appendix F.

At the J anuary 2012 meeting, no report provided. COD

At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the recommended practice provided in the docket.
COD pending TF work

The following individual will be added to the TF: Larry Loman and J ay Standish

At the J uly 2012 meeting, hope to have an updated TF proposal at the October meeting.

At the October 2012 meeting, J . Rader summarized the proposal handed out during the meeting
describing a new recommended practice titled Guideline for threaded and bolted flange joint
assembly. The plan is to have a finalized proposal by the J anuary 2013 TCC meeting. COD

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, J . Rader stated that the TF plans to have a final proposal by the April
2013 TCC meeting.

Page 23
A/C

AAR received proposal via email on 3/12/13 from J . Rader:

APPENDIX J
GUIDELINES FOR THREADED AND BOLTED FLANGE JOINT ASSEMBLY

Recommended Practice
RP-XXX
Adopted: January 1, XXXX
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Scope. This uocument pioviues guiuance foi the piopei assembly of thieaueu anu bolteu connections of
seivice equipment to tank cais. This uocument piesents geneial guiuelines foi the assembly of thieaueu anu
bolteu connections anu iecommenueu pioceuuies. It is not a complete anu compiehensive set of methous,
instiuctions, oi pioceuuies applicable foi all situations. Each usei company is encouiageu to uevelop specific
pioceuuies using this uocument as a geneial guiue wheie it applies. The guiuelines outlineu in this uocument
covei the assembly elements essential foi a high level of joint integiity of otheiwise piopeily uesigneu anu
constiucteu thieaueu anu bolteu flangeu connections.
1.2. Befoie peifoiming any woik, follow plant safety pioceuuies to ielieve the piessuie safely fiom the tank.
0bseive cuiient conuitions;
0tilize checklist to ensuie thoiough uocumentation of as received conuitions;
In paiticulai, look foi appaient leaks, loose fasteneis, anu gasket conuition; anu
Assembly peisonnel shoulu iepoit visible leaks thiu theii piopei channelsappiopiiate supeivisoi.
1.3. Recognizing the aiiay of aieas that coulu leau to equipment connection failuies, this Appenuix uses a best
practices appioach to evaluate anu woik with equipment connections. In simplifieu teims, this is an inspectto
pass piocess wheie the equipment connection is evaluateu, anu if the connection fails, auuitional examination
anu possibly iewoik will be iequiieu. Tank cai leaks not only enuangei employees, but also iesult in expensive
fines anu iemeuiation along with pooi visibility in the public uomain.
1.4. Each tank cai facility peifoiming woik in accoiuance with this Appenuix must obtain an Association of
Ameiican Railioaus, Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, Section C, Pait III, Specifications foi Tank
Cais, Appenuix B, ceitification oi iegistiation, as appiopiiate.
2.0 DEFINITIONS
The definitions and abbreviations in Chapter 1, paragraph 1.2, apply in this Appendix.
3.0 THREADED CONNECTIONS
3.1. Disassembly and inspection
3.1.1. Bisassemble with an appiopiiate wiench to avoiu uamaging valve, fitting bouy, oi flats.
3.1.2. With a wiie biush, clean thieaus of foieign mateiial, such as PTFE tape, joint compounu, paint, anu
commouity.
3.1.3. 0sing a clean cloth oi papei towel, wipe the thieau suiface to iemove any iesiuual mateiial oi solution.

Page 24

3.1.4. Inspect the thieaus to confiim that theie aie no cuts, gouges, oi othei uefect that may affect sealing
integiity.
3.1.5. Inspect the thieaus with an appiopiiate iing oi plug gauge.
3.1.6. Repaii uamageu oi outoftoleiance thieaus when piactical oi ieplace inkinu.
3.2. Assembly
3.2.1. Ensuie that the thieaus (male anu female) aie clean piioi to assembly.
3.2.2. Apply a PTFE thieau lubiicant tape oi paste to the male thieaus. If using tape, wiap the tape in the
uiiection of the thieau spiial, beginning with fiist thieau. Bo not wiap outsiue of the thieaus, oi exceeu thiee (S)
wiaps of tape. PTFE tape anu paste is a thieau lubiicant not a thieau sealant.
Note: Thieau sealing compounus aie not iecommenueu on pipe thieau joints.
3.2.3. Thieau the joint slowly to avoiu piouucing excess fiiction. Beat piouuceu by fiiction can cause the metal
to expanu befoie piopeily making the joint.
3.3. The following table iuentifies the length of minimum thieau engagement, incluuing the fiist thiee (S) leau
thieaus, iequiieu to make a tight joint.
Table F1. Thread Engagement
Size of Pipe
(diameter)
Length of
Thread
1/4 3/8
3/8 3/8
1/2
3/4 9/16
1 11/16
1-1/4 11/16
1-1/2 11/16
2
2-1/2 15/16
3 1
3-1/2 1-1/16
4 1-1/8
3.4. All joint connections must pass a leak test after assembly.
3.5. Tool Usage
3.5.1. When replacing a valve or fitting, use two wrenches to prevent rotation of other joints.
3.5.2. Use a suitable size wrench for the size of pipe or fitting removed or installed.
4.0 BOLTED CONNECTIONS
4.1. Disassembly
4.1.1. Piioi to uisassembly, uiaw a iefeience maik fiom the component to the cai to ensuie piopei oiientation
when ieassembling.
4.1.2. Loosen fasteneis oi nuts using suitable type of wiench, avoiuing uamage to fasteneis wheie possible.

Page 25

4.1.3. 0n bauly coiioueu fasteneis, apply penetiating oil to ease iemoval.
4.1.4. Sepaiate fitting flanges using soft metal tools taking caie not to scoie oi sciape mating suifaces.
4.2. Gasket Removal
4.2.1. Removal of NonAsbestos uaskets anu 0thei Bebiis.
4.2.1.1. 0se steel oi biass tools to iemove all paits of the olu gasket mateiial anu uebiis fiom the flange sealing
suiface.
4.2.1.2. Avoiu scoiing oi sciaping the sealing suiface.
4.3. Removal of Asbestos Containing uaskets
4.3.1. Follow youi facilitys asbestos iemoval pioceuuies.
4.4. Cleaning
4.4.1. Clean gasketsealing suiface.
4.4.2. 0se a wiie biush maue of mateiial compatible with the flange mateiial to pievent cioss contamination to
clean the flangesealing suiface.
4.4.3. If neeueu, use fine sanu oi light abiasive blast to avoiu uamaging gasket suiface piofile, oi utilize a gasket
iemoval compounu, oi a suitable geneialpuipose uegieasei.
4.4.4. Foi sealing suifaces that aie clau, plateu, oi lineu, clean these aieas with a clean cloth only.
4.5. Inspection
4.5.1. Examination of Sealing Suifaces
4.5.1.1. Sealing suiface must be clean, with no coiiosion, gasket iesiuue, uiit paiticles, oi commouity iesiuue.
4.5.1.2. Sealing suiface must have no uamage, such as tool maiks, chattei, ciacks, gouges, oi pits that will affect
sealing.
4.5.1.3. Befects that aie ueepei than 1S2inch anu aie continuous acioss the gasketsealing suiface shoulu be
auuiesseu.
4.6. Coated surfaces
4.6.1.1. A coateu flange oi iubbeilineu suiface is subject to special uesign consiueiation. 0se best piactices
when uealing with this type of joint.
4.7. Inspect Fasteners, Nuts, and Washers
4.7.1. Befoie peifoiming an inspection, clean fasteneis, nuts, anu washeis as necessaiy.
4.7.2. visibly check to ensuie theie is auequate thieau engagement in accoiuance with Appenuix B, paiagiaph
S.7.
4.7.3. visibly check to ensuie theie is no missing oi unieauable giaue maikings (may not apply to all fasteneis
|e.g., eyebolts anu nutsj).

Page 26
4.7.4. visibly check to ensuie theie is no uamage to the fastenei oi nut.
4.7.5. Inspect foi thieau uamage.
4.7.6. Fasteneis must not be bent oi uefoimeu.
4.7.7. uouges, uents, nicks fiom tool maiks (e.g., hammei maiks) in nonfunctional aieas uoes not constitute
ienewal.
4.7.8. visibly check to ensuie the washeis aie uimensionally suitable anu aie not uamageu, cuppeu, scoieu, oi
ciackeu.
4.7.9. Check that the nut can be iun up anu uown along the useable poition of the thieaus.
4.7.10. Inspect hingeu anu bolteu manway covei, fill poit covei, anu eyebolts in accoiuance with Appenuix B,
paiagiaph 6.4.
4.7.11. If components aie uefective, ieplace in kinu oi accoiuing to ownei instiuctions.
4.8. Assembly
4.8.1. Installation of uasket
4.8.1.1. Ensuie the gasket meets the following ciiteiia:
4.8.1.1.1. Chemically compatible with the lauing;
4.8.1.1.2. Theimally compatible with the highest anu lowest tempeiatuie iange (e.g., loauingunloauing
hot piouucts);
4.8.1.1.S. Nechanically suitable foi the iespective flange; anu
4.8.1.1.4. Bimensionally suitable.
4.8.1.2. When installing the gasket, the gasket must not binu oi inteifeie with the fasteneis.
4.8.1.3. When installing the gasket, the gasket shoulu not inteifeie with piouuct flow oi the function of the
piessuie ielief uevice, anu the gasket must be concentiic within the flange.
4.8.1.4. The size of the gasket must be sufficient to ensuie gasket compiession foi sealing.
4.8.1.5. The gasket must have no uamage aftei installation.
4.8.1.6. 0thei than in tongue anu gioove joints, the gasket, in geneial, shoulu not be less than Vinch wiue.
4.9. Alignment of Mating Surfaces
4.9.1. Component must be installeu in the same oiientation as when iemoveu fiom the tank cai using the
iefeience maik uiawn uuiing uisassembly.
4.9.2. Buiing installation, anu as the component flanges come togethei, the flanges shoulu iemain paiallel in
oiuei to pievent pinching the gasket.
4.9.3. The weight of some components can cieate hanuling challenges; anu theiefoie, consiuei suppoiting the
weight of the component uuiing installation with the use of a lifting uevice.

Page 27
4.10. Installation of Fasteners
4.10.1. New Fasteneis
4.10.1.1. Fasteneis secuiing a piessuieietaining fitting must be appioveu in accoiuance with Appenuix
N, oi meet the uesign specification as annotateu on the tank cai uiawing.
4.10.1.2. In accoiuance with Appenuix N, paiagiaph 1.2.S, fasteneis must have giaue anu manufactuieis
iuentification (manway eyebolts anu socket heau cap sciews aie excluueu unless iequiieu by the cai ownei).
4.10.1.3. Fastenei giaue maikings must be oiienteu to allow foi visible inspection.
4.10.1.4. Fasteneis anu nuts must be of the same giaue anu specification, unless specifieu otheiwise by
the cai ownei.
4.10.2. If iequiieu by uesign, apply specifieu lubiication (e.g., antiseize) to the woiking suifaces of the fastenei
anu nut (i.e., fastenei thieaus, nut beaiing suiface, anu if applicable, unueisiue of bolt heau).
4.10.2.1. Some commouities may iequiie a specializeu thieau lubiicant (e.g., chloiine), oi no thieau
lubiicant.
4.11. Thread Engagement (not applicable to manway eyebolts)
4.11.1. Aftei assembly, theie shoulu be one to two full thieaus exposeu beyonu each nut.
4.11.2. As a minimum, anu in accoiuance with Appenuix B, paiagiaph S.7.4.S, nuts must be fully engageu. That
is, no nut thieau may be showing.
4.12. Blind Tapped Hole
4.12.1. Thieau entiie stuu into the mounting flange, no moie than one oi two iunout thieaus shoulu be visible.
4.12.2. The chamfeieu enu of the stuu must be fully engageu in the blinu tappeu holes of the mounting flange to
the full uepth of the mounting.
4.13. Existing Fasteners (used)
4.13.1. Follow the iequiiements in paiagiaph 4.1u.1of this Appenuix foi new fasteneis.
4.13.2. Fasteneis may be ieapplieu if they aie functional anu not uamageu. Clean by wiie biush anu
compiesseu aii when iequiieu. Bo not clean fasteneis by sanublasting.
4.13.3. Aftei cleaning the fastenei, the nut shoulu tuin fieely foi the entiie thieaueu poition (not applicable to
nuts with antivibiation technology |i.e., nylon inseit nuts oi secuiity locknutsj).
4.13.4. When ieplacing onehalf oi moie fasteneis on the same fitting, the iemaining fasteneis on the same
fitting also shoulu be ieplaceu with the same fastenei anu nut giaue.
4.14. Tightening of Fasteners
4.14.1. Refei to cai ownei oi othei appioveu assembly pioceuuies foi piopei joint tightening anu fastenei
toique iecommenuations. The assembly pioceuuies must take into consiueiation gasket size, gasket mateiial,
lubiicant, bolt type, anu iegulatoiy iequiiements.
4.14.2. In the absence of a tightening sequence fiom the cai ownei oi othei appioveu assembly pioceuuie, iefei
to:
4.14.2.1. Appenuix B, paiagiaph S.2.S, Figuie B1 foi manway covei plates, valves, fittings, anu flanges.

Page 28
A/C

4.14.2.2. Appenuix B, paiagiaph 6.6, Figuie BS foi hingeu anu bolteu manways.
4.14.3. When tightening fasteneis, use a calibiateu manual oi pneumatic toique wiench.
4.14.4. Aftei assembly, peifoim a leak test, if iequiieu, in accoiuance with the applicable pioceuuie.
5.0 JOINT LEAK TIGHTNESS
Acceptable methods of nondestructive testing (NDT) are shown in Appendix T, Table T1. The
NDT Level III must determine the applicability of any particular NDT method for a given inspection.
6.0 FUNCTIONSPECIFIC TRAINING OF ASSEMBLY PERSONNEL
6.1. Each employei shoulu uevelop a systematic tiaining cuiiiculum foi joint assembly peisonnel in accoiuance
with the feueial tiaining iequiiements that contain the elements iuentifieu in each paiagiaph of this Appenuix
(See 49 CFR 172.7uu et seq., anu Tianspoit of Bangeious uoous, Pait 6). The piogiam shoulu incluue classioom
tiaining, hanuson tiaining, a piactical uemonstiation to confiim joint assembly peisonnel unueistoou the
tiaining anu can apply it in eveiyuay situations, anu onthejob tiaining. Assembly peisonnel who successfully
complete the tiaining cuiiiculum, passeu eithei a wiitten oi an oial exam, anu uemonstiateu hanuson capability
aie consiueieu qualifieu to assemble a thieaueu oi bolteu flange joint assembly.

CURRENT TF: J . Rader (Chair), D. Prince, M. Nunez, T. Sisto, R. Aliota, R. J achim, S. McQueen,
A. Schaffer, S. Martin, D. Reid, C. Edmonds, R. Spring T. DeKoning, P. Langley, L.
Loman, J . Standish

TF CHARGE: The charge of the TF would include the review of basic philosophies and best
practices for fluid sealing. The result of this work would be a recommended
practice, not a standard.

REFERENCES:

Page 29
M/GDE
Evaluate the Performance of Half Height Head Shields

Recent Activity: See below.

At the April 2012 meeting, a motion was made, seconded, and approved to establish a TF to evaluate
and model the performance of half height head shields. This request was made under executive
docket T100-09 New Business. Currently 49 CFR only allows for physical testing to prove
performance of new half-height head shield designs. It was felt that an option to use modeling would
benefit industry.

At the J uly 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey proposed that the current physical testing requirement in 49
CFR be updated with a computer modeling option. It was noted that half height head shields are
becoming more prevalent in light of the PFR. The question is whether to allow modeling as an
alternative to the currently required physical testing. Task Force members will be Karl Alexy: FRA,
J P Gagnon: TC, AD McKisic: Trinity, Glen Sandheinrich: ARC, and J oe Perez: UTC. Currently,
head shields on are an AAR requirement not a DOT requirement for crude oil and ethanol cars. The
task force will develop a proposal.

At the October 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey asked T. Treichel if research can be done to determine the
distribution of tank head damage (i.e. top half versus bottom half of the head).

TF is working to determine if modeling of the performance of half height head shield is sufficient
rather than actual physical testing of new bracket designs.

The locations at which physical test can occur are very limited. HM-144 is the rulemaking that
started the requirement for half height head shields for pressure tank cars. One TCC member
mentioned that one major factor driving a renewed interest in deciding if physical testing or
modeling is the requirement to have at least half height head shields on the tank car built to transport
crude oil. Currently, head shields on these cars are an AAR requirement not a DOT requirement for
crude oil and ethanol cars. The task force will develop a proposal. T. Treichel agreed to research
both the trapezoidal and conformed Half Height Head Shields (HHHS) accident data. Todd will also
research the distribution of damage on HHHS.

TCC agreed to move this docket to the appropriate sub TCC docket.

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, T. Treichel stated that historic information on this is available. The TF
has met but has not yet reviewed the material available. Chris Edmonds will chair this TF.

CURRENT TF: C. Edmonds (Chair), K. Alexy, J P Gagnon, AD McKisic, J . Perez, F. Gonzalez

TF CHARGE: Evaluate and model the performance of half height head shields

REFERENCES:

Page 30
A/C
Consider Requirements for Installation of Surge Suppression Devices

Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that there are no further commodities being requested
at this time to add to M-1002. Several members stated that it might be valuable to reference these
commodities other than in M-1002.

It has been recommended to the executive committee that the surge protection requirements on post
1994 rupture disk devices should be extended to pre 1994 cars. This would require all rupture disk
devices to have surge protection on relief valves. The TF should recommend changes to paragraph
A4.7.4 if necessary.

At the J anuary 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the recommendation provided in the docket.
Frank Reiner (Chlorine Institute) explained the recent concerns one of his members had with rupture
disk devices not having surge protection. The committee agreed to the request but after consideration
rescinded the action. The TCC did agree to create a TF to review this topic. TF Chair: Frank Reiner,
TF Members: Scott Murray, Harold Weber, and Larry Hopper. The charge will be; to determine the
suitability of retrofitting tank cars prior to 1994 with surge suppression devices. There may be a
proposal for April 2010 TCC meeting. The TCC requested that suspense docket T-50.34.1
Performance Standard for Surge Pressure Reduction Devices be re-opened with the goal of
publicizing what was learned during testing.

Received via e-mail dated 3/2/10.

The task force held a conference call meeting on 2-310 and discussed the merits of the request.
While it was generally agreed that it was reasonable to require retrofit on cars carrying commodities
where failure of discs is more frequent it was also agreed that certain elevated temperature materials
do not warrant retrofitting. These materials solidify rapidly after loading and the risk of a disc
rupture due to a surge was reported to be extremely low. It was noted that a similar justification was
considered when the bottom outlet protection retrofit requirements were developed many years ago.

After discussion the task force recommends adding a new paragraph A 4.7.5 which reads:

A 4.7.5 Tank cars that are equipped with rupture disc devices and are placed in regulated commodity
service, except for molten sulfur and elevated temperature materials, must be equipped with a surge
pressure reduction device at their next qualification after [insert effective date].

At the April 2010 meeting, F. Reiner explained that a large percentage of HCL NARs are from
failed rupture disk devices that do not have surge protection. There are valves being used today that
were built prior to 1994 that do not have to have surge suppression. Discussion of the TF proposal
resulted in the following comments:
1. Adding exclude combination devices after rupture disc devices
2. Adding Class 9 in front of elevated temperature materials

Motion made, seconded, and passed to move the amended proposal to the executive TCC for
consideration.

Page 31
A/C

Revised Proposal
A 4.7.5 Tank cars that are equipped with rupture disc devices, excluding combination devices, and
are placed in regulated commodity service, except for molten sulfur and Class 9 elevated temperature
materials, must be equipped with a surge pressure reduction device at their next qualification after
[insert effective date].

K. Dorsey reported that if a car was approved prior to May 1994 without a surge suppression device
and was later changed with an approved valve requiring surge suppression this would change the
original approved 4-2 and an R-1 would be required.

At the J uly 2010 meeting, F. Reiner discussed the revised proposal provided within the docket. A
motion was made, seconded, and passed to approve the revised proposal below with the addition of
words For all non-pressure added to the first sentence as shown below. AAR will publish a CPC
for comments on this change to M-1002.

Revised Proposal
A 4.7.5 Tank cars that are equipped with rupture disc devices, excluding combination devices, and
are placed in regulated commodity service, except for molten sulfur and Class 9 elevated temperature
materials, must be equipped with a surge pressure reduction device at their next qualification after
[insert effective date].

Approved Revised Proposal
A 4.7.5 For all non-pressure tank cars that are equipped with rupture disc devices, excluding
combination devices, and are placed in regulated commodity service, except for molten sulfur and
Class 9 elevated temperature materials, must be equipped with a surge pressure reduction device at
their next qualification after [insert effective date].

At the October 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the approved revised proposal provided in the
docket and stated that this docket will remain open as information only. AAR plans to publish a CPC
for comments on this change to M-1002.

At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that AAR plans to publish a CPC for comment on
the change to MSRP Section C-III. COD

At the April 2011 meeting, this docket will be COD pending AAR publishing CPC.

At the J uly 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that the approved revised proposal, provided in the
docket, will be published in a CPC for comment in the near future. COD

At the J anuary 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that AAR received two requests for exemptions
from this requirement. Ken asked the Tank Car Committee how they wanted AAR to handle these
exemptions. The Tank Car Committee agreed to establish an advisory TF under this docket to attend
to exemption request. Members of this advisory TF will include Pat Student, Harold Weber, Allen
Richter, Kirk Warner, Karl Alexy, Carl Akins, J P Gagnon, and Scott Murray. This advisory TF will
determine if a CPC should be published each time there is a product exempt from the requirement of
a surge suppression device.

Page 32
A/C
Per e-mail dated 1/12/12
Accepted proposal to Appendix A:
4.7.5 All non-pressure tank cars that are equipped with rupture disc devices, excluding combination
devices, and that are placed in regulated commodity service, except for molten sulphur and Class 9
elevated temperature materials, must be equipped with a surge pressure reduction device at their next
qualification after J uly 1, 2012.
New proposal to Appendix A:
devices, and that are placed in regulated commodity service, except for molten sulphur, acrylamide
solution, and Class 9 elevated temperature materials, must be equipped with a surge pressure
reduction device at their next qualification after J uly 1, 2012.
At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the new proposal provided in the docket. The
recent change includes the addition of Acrylamide solution. Anyone wanting to add any material to
the exempt would have to make their request directly to AAR. An advisory TF has been established
in order to review any request made my industry to add materials to the exempt list. If a material is
approved by the advisory TF then AAR will publish a CPC notifying industry of the change.
Question was asked about the term next qualification and whether or not that refers to next tank
car qualification or next service equipment qualification. K. Dorsey stated it will be next service
equipment qualification not next tank car qualification.

Current wording of proposal:
Appendix A of M-1002
devices, and that are placed in regulated commodity service, except for molten sulphur, acrylamide
solution, and Class 9 elevated temperature materials, must be equipped with a surge pressure
reduction device at their next service equipment qualification after J uly 1, 2012.

At the J uly 2012 meeting, the committee agreed to add acrylamide solution to the list of product
exempt from requiring a surge suppression device.

At the October 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the addition of acrylamide solution to the list of
products exempt from the requirement of a surge suppression device. COD

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that there are no further commodities being requested
at this time to add to M-1002. Several members stated that it might be valuable to reference these
commodities other than in M-1002.

Page 33
A/C

CURRENT TF: S Murray, L Hopper, F Reiner, H Weber

TF CHARGE:

ADVISORY TF: P. Student, H. Weber, A. Richter, K. Warner, K. Alexy, C. Akins, J P
Gagnon, S. Murray.

ADVISORY TF CHARGE: Determine if a CPC should be published each time there is a product
exempt from the requirement of a surge suppression device.

REFERENCES: F. Reiner 3/2/10; G Sandheinrich 6/9/10; L Loman 1/12/12

Page 34
A/C
AFFTAC Thermal Model

Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, J . Sbragia stated that Scott Runnels is working on the latest beta
version. A new user manual is in draft form and being reviewed by the TF. Simulation program is
being used to verify the AFFTAC model. The RSI and safety project would like to engage a third
party company to validate the AFFTAC model specifically someone who has the resources to verify
that the bugs are addressed.

At the April 2000 meeting, J H Rader reported on a meeting among government and industry
representatives and thermal experts that took place on 3/31/00. An ad hoc FRA task force has been
formed, with the objective of reviewing the Birk observations and other comments regarding
AFFTAC, and making recommendations regarding the model and the regulations.

At the August 2000 videoconference, TH Dalrymple reported that Southwest Research will update
the interface. The work will belong to the Tank Car Project but will be shared with the governments.
J H Rader discussed a meeting held 7/22/00 that organized a variety of efforts for AFFTAC, including
proposed data collection and thermal modeling improvements.

At the J uly 2001 meeting, T. Dalrymple reported that the program is complete. Shippers may request
a copy of the program from one of the funding parties. He added that a project is being developed to
translate the original Fortran source code to C++.

At the J anuary 2002 meeting, it was reported that the conversion to C++is complete. RPI will request
funding to document the AFFTAC development and theory. Any use of AFFTAC to evaluate
acceptability of a thermal protection system for a required performance standard will need a detailed
set of test parameters.

At the October 2002 meeting, T. Dalrymple discussed his proposal for the baseline test conditions. It
was noted that the proposed conditions were slightly different from the CGSB proposed standard. A
task force has been formed to review the proposal consisting of: A. Henzi (Chr), J . Sbragia, J P
Gagnon, V. Sharma and J Portis.

At the J anuary 2003 meeting, the task force charge was modified. The new charge will be to develop
language for use in M-1002 with regard to AFFTAC and review proposed 2.2.14 for inclusion in M-
1002. FRA has a report on vapor flow and is investigating the possibility of developing data on
liquid flow thru pressure relief devices. The AAR has requested a copy of any available data.
A call has gone out for suggested improvements to the AFFTAC thermal model. One request to
review the validity of the isothermic assumptions used in AFFTAC has already been received.

Page 35
A/C

At the October 2003 meeting, J . Portis reported that the default values shown in 2.2.14.3(e) may not
be accurate. Also, these values shouldnt be necessary, as the manufacturer should provide actual data
for each valve. T. Treichel reported that the RSI-AAR Project is arranging for a maintenance contract
for AFFTAC, to ensure its ongoing usefulness. Looking further out, the initial stages of planning for
a new set of full-scale fire tests will begin later this year. Such tests would provide AFFTAC users
with data that are better matched with todays equipment, and would validate AFFTACs algorithms.

At the J anuary 2004 meeting, the Committee accepted the proposed 2.2.14 as written. The docket
will remain open for future work to modify AFFTAC to model partial loss of thermal protection.
(Staff note proposal was included in the 2007 issue of M-1002)

At the April 2004 meeting, T. Dalrymple discussed this docket. S. Runnels is updating the software to
permit analysis of tank cars with partial loss of thermal protection.

At the October 2004 meeting, T. Dalrymple reported that the software has been modified to handle
partial loss of thermal protection and is available to the RSI and AAR for testing. A. Henzi noted that
Dow is concerned over initial temperature that is assumed for the calculation. T. Dalrymple
discussed and noted that Federal Regulations control the initial temperature assumption. J . Rader
commented that the Federal Regulation will need to consider exemptions for special cases. A. Henzi
then discussed the discharge coefficients. G. Portis commented that it would be very expensive to
test for liquid discharge coefficients and recommended a change in the assumed coefficient. T.
Phemister added that FRA would consider a petition with technical justification for a change in
federal rules.

Via e-mail dated 4/13/05, A. Henzi indicated offered the following comments.

According to the background, docket T50.49 was RFD at the J anuary meeting. This section is
still in need of work. There should be no default for vapor discharge coefficient (see 2.2.14.3.e)
since actual vapor discharge coefficients are available for all the safety valves. The default
liquid discharge coefficient is under dispute (from J . Portis - he has had a few tests made and
the results do not support a 0.6 default) and needs to be resolved. In addition, the initial
temperatures specified in 2.2.14.3.a are not realistic for some commodities - and should not rely
on the FRA exemption process to fix the issue. I suggest that either T50.49 be reopened or,
alternatively, that section 2.2.14 be withheld from M-1002 until Docket T65.8 can provide some
satisfactory substitute for AFFTAC. In either case, section 2.2.14 is in no way ready for
inclusion in M-1002. The most recent version fails to even run for many realistic cases (I have
had to revert to the 8-06-03 version to get any results).

At the April 2005 meeting DOW Chemical noted that certain Time-Sensitive Chemicals may have
problems with the initial conditions put forward in the agreed to proposal. J P Gagnon noted that it
might be better to handle those by exemption rather than trying to rework the proposal.

Page 36
A/C

At the J uly 2005 meeting, P. Daum discussed this docket with the committee. A. Henzi recommends
that the committee review the approved proposal as it may have certain values that will not work for
all products. The committee may want to designate a factor of safety to be used in the calculations. P.
Daum noted that issues raised in A. Henzis e-mail of 4/13/05 need to be addressed. T. Dalrymple has
been added to the task force.

At the October 2005 meeting, J . Portis reported that the TF had not completed its work. A meeting
was held in Ottawa discussing Dr. Birks model and proposed fire testing. P. Kinnecom noted that A.
Henzis comments still need to be addressed by the TF.

At the J anuary 2006 meeting, Phil Daum reported that RSI has funded further improvements to the
AFFTAC program. The concerns raised by Al Henzi are being worked through the task force.

At the April 2006 meeting, J erry Portis discussed progress on this activity. Midland Mfg. is
conducting liquid testing on pressure relief valves to determine their liquid flow efficiency. During
the executive session it was decided to have Tom Dalrymple to take over chair of this task force at the
suggestion of J erry Portis. Homer Taber will be added to the task force. Tom Dalrymple requested a
current list of task force members.

At the J uly 2006 meeting, T. Dalrymple reported that the TF is working toward answering the
questions raised about the flow coefficient values, possible non-conservative results, and initial lading
temperatures. Using a factor of safety has been suggested. The RSI has initiated work to update the
AFFTAC GUI which may cause their version to differ from the FRA version.

Via e-mail dated 10/09/06, M. Nunez has been added to the TF.

At the October 2006 meeting, T. Dalrymple reported that software issues were continuing to be
addressed. FRA is looking for a research partner to conduct liquid flow testing. The use of factors of
safety is still under review.

At the J anuary 2007, the Trinity representative reported that the updated software was available for
testing. The RSI has agreed to provide the newest version of AFFTAC to DOT so that it may be
offered in the public domain. RSI will continue to support AFFTAC and its future development.

During the April 2007 meeting, the DOW representative noted that some products may need special
consideration for initial parameters when using the model.

At the J uly 2007 meeting, T. Dalrymple reported that the AFFTAC software continues to be
improved. There are three major issues currently being reviewed, liquid flow coefficients for valves,
initial conditions for the calculations, and determining if a factor of safety is warranted.

At the October 2007 meeting, T. Dalrymple discussed the public availability of the software. The
steps toward future improvements were discussed as well as the actions necessary to document the
quality and reliability of the software.

Page 37
A/C

At the J anuary 2008 meeting, it was noted that the committee will need to appoint a new discussant
for this effort. RSI-AAR Project is trying to identify a replacement for T. Dalrymple as he has retired.

The Tank Car Safety Project is undertaking a list of improvements to the AFFTAC model in nine
areas, including computational algorithms, the graphical user interface, and caretaking practices. Dr.
Scott Runnels has completed a report on a sensitivity analysis, prepared the RSI-AAR software for
public access, planned some modifications to model algorithms, and made updates and corrections to
the documentation. Work on the list continues.

At the April 2008 meeting, J . Sbragia updated the committee on the current fire modeling and testing
activities.

At the J uly 2008 meeting, J . Sbragia is the new discussant for this docket. The Tank Car Safety
Project is undertaking a list of improvements to the AFFTAC model in nine areas, including
computational algorithms, the graphical user interface, and caretaking practices. Dr. Scott Runnels
has completed a report on a sensitivity analysis, prepared the RSI-AAR software for public access,
and made updates and corrections to the documentation. An improved and more flexible module for
modeling thermal protection systems and defects is nearly complete.

At the October 2008 meeting, it was reported that S. Reynolds will continue to work on the model by
designing additional functionality and the user interface. The safety project team will set a date for
training on the AFFTAC model via webcast. The Tank Car Safety Project is undertaking a list of
improvements to the AFFTAC model in nine areas, including computational algorithms, the graphical
user interface, and caretaking practices. S. Runnels has completed a report on a sensitivity analysis,
prepared the RSI-AAR software for public access, made updates and corrections to the
documentation, and released a new beta version featuring an improved and more flexible module for
modeling thermal protection systems and defects.

The following comments were received via email, dated 1/10/06.

1. Concern about AFFTAC:
A. All product must be at one temperature
B. There is concern about suitability of AFFTAC if some of the insulation is wiped off
the tank car

2. There are discharge coefficients for liquid and vapor required. If not available, there are
default values for liquid and vapor of 0.6 and 0.8 respectively. All PRVs must be tested for
vapor discharge, and no extrapolations are permitted. So there is no need for any
extrapolations for vapor flow. Midland tested 3 small PRVs to get flow rates of liquid flow.
The results were flow rates from 0.27 to 0.73

The PRVs are designed to be flow rated only in vapor flow. To get attractive flow rates for liquid
would entail different designs of the huddle chamber of the PRVs. Last year the FRA said that
they would try to run some liquid flow tests of large capacity PRVs, but I am not aware that any
liquid flow tests were conducted by the FRA on PRVs. It is evident that the default value for
liquid flow of .6 is inappropriate.

Page 38
A/C

At the J anuary 2009 meeting, J . Sbragia reported that the first training session on the AFFTAC
thermal model was held in December 2008. Any comment from the first training session should be
sent via e-mail to T. Treichel. The next training session will be change based on comments. The next
training session is scheduled to take place sometime in the first quarter of 2009.

At the April 2009 meeting, the Tank Car Safety Project is undertaking a list of improvements to the
AFFTAC model in nine areas, including computational algorithms, the graphical user interface, and
caretaking practices. Dr. S. Runnels has completed a number of improvements, and work on the list
continues. A second user training session is being planned. Suggestion was made to conduct a
literature research to determine how insulation degrades over time. R. Triche from UTLX had found
some mistakes in the new version of the model. He will provide them to J . Sbragia from GATX.

At the J uly 2009 meeting, J . Sbragia reported that he is working with S. Runnels to plan the next
training session to be scheduled by the fall 2009 TCC meeting. The TF is currently reviewing the
support needs for the AFFTAC Thermal Model to determine if Mr. Runnels will have enough
resources to continue manage the project.

At the October 2009 meeting, J . Sbragia reported that S. Runnels plans to provide the next training
session before the end of 2009. The training was placed on hold due to S. Runnels required upgrades
to his computer. Any significant changes the users have on the model should be directed to RSI.
Direct all minor program bugs to S. Runnels.

At the J anuary 2010 meeting, J . Sbragia reported that S. Runnels will provide a training session on
February 25-26, 2010 via webcast. FRA, PHMSA, and Transport Canada plan to participate in the
training session in February. Anyone interested in participating in the training session please contact
Todd Treichel. S. Runnels recently made improvements to the beta version, which is now available,
and plans to address program bugs in 2010.

At the April 2010 meeting, J . Sbragia reported that S. Runnels provided a training session on
February 25-26, 2010 via webcast. Any comments on the training should be forwarded to J . Sbragia,
T. Treichel, or S. Runnels. S. Runnels plans to working on program bugs as they appear.

At the J uly 2010 meeting, J . Sbragia reported that bugs found during the beta testing process have
been fixed. The new version of AFFTAC is now available to be evaluated. S. Runnels plans to
evaluate the high temperature steel data to determine how to incorporate the results into the model.

At the October 2010 meeting, J . Sbragia reported that the beta version is available on-line to
download. Any comments on this beta version are to be sent to T. Treichel and J . Sbragia. S.
Runnels plans to work on debugging the model for the remainder of the year and plans to evaluate
the high temperature steel data in 2011.

Page 39
A/C

At the J anuary 2011 meeting, J . Sbragia reported that programming bugs are being fixed on the
insulation model within AFFTAC. It is planned that the work performed by the T65.8 (Thermal
Protection Research & Modeling) TF will be incorporated into the AFFTAC model in 2011. COD

At the April 2011 meeting, J . Sbragia reported that as a result of research being completed by the
RSI-AAR research program a few projects are ready to be incorporated into AFFTAC. The specific
items include the liquid flow coefficient model and the failure model.

At the J uly 2011 meeting, J . Sbragia stated that Scott Runnels continues his work on debugging the
new insulation model. The thermal emissivity work performed by RSI and FRA is being
incorporated into the model. An analysis is being performed to determine if liquid emissivity is a
factor in the model. By October 2011 the flow coefficient and high temperature will be incorporated
into the AFFTAC model.

At the October 2011 meeting, J . Sbragia stated that while using the AFFTAC model during recent
T87.6 TF activities some bugs were found in the beta version. S. Runnels has been assigned to work
on these programming bugs. TF current focus is on liquid flow coefficient data and how to
implement it into the model.

At the J anuary 2012 meeting, J . Sbragia stated that S. Runnels, over the past three months, has fixed
all bugs and has recently released a new beta version. The 2012 activity will incorporate flow
coefficient and emissivity data from FRA and Transport Canada into the model. A user manual is
expected to be completed on the system by the end of 2012. The TF will look into how to transfer
over the changes over the last few years to create the beta version to make it the new version of the
model. S. Runnels now has set aside time to answer questions related to the software.

At the April 2012 meeting, J . Sbragia reported on the progress on the AFFTAC model. High
temperature failure data has been added to the model and liquid flow coefficient data will soon be
incorporated into the model. TF will meet soon to discuss the recent additions to the model and focus
on further testing of the model. Anyone wanting to join the TF shall contact TF chair J ohn Sbragia

At the J uly 2012 meeting, T. Treichel gave a presentation on RSI-AAR project projects and
discussed AFFTAC thermal model improvements. The need to decide when a beta version becomes
a usable version was noted and the AFFTAC stack holder will hold a teleconference to determine the
timing of adopting the beta program. The Project is considering an outside consultant to validate the
model AFFTAC to increase industry confidence in the results.

Page 40
A/C

At the October 2012 meeting, Dr. S. Runnels has completed a number of improvements to AFFTAC
and more work is in progress. Improved tank steel failure modeling is in place, based on high-
temperature tests done by the RSI-AAR Safety Project. Both the new PRV liquid flow data from
FRAs tests and the new high-temperature steel performance test data have been incorporated into a
new beta version. Validation against high-fidelity thermodynamic models is underway.
Documentation is being compiled for the current beta version.

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, J . Sbragia stated that Scott Runnels is working on the latest beta
version. A new user manual is in draft form and being reviewed by the TF. Simulation program is
being used to verify the AFFTAC model. The RSI and safety project would like to engage a third
party company to validate the AFFTAC model specifically someone who has the resources to verify
that the bugs are addressed.

CURRENT TF: J . Sbragia (Chr), G Booth, J P Gagnon, J Perez, M. Nunez
REFERENCES: TH Dalrymple 08/13/02, 4/12/04, 2/13/05, 4/21/06, 4/23/06, 4/24/06, 5/4/06X2,
5/6/06, 7/20/06, 4/3/07; J P Gagnon 9/25/03; SR Runnels 3/27/06, 5/1/06, 5/10/06,
4/2/07; T. Treichel 01/07/02, 9/26/03, 2/16/04, 11/11/04, 9/30/05, 3/27/06,
4/21/06; A Henzi 10/12/04, 10/13/04X2, 10/19/04X2, 4/13/05, 9/30/05, 5/8/06
5/31/06; M McGregor 4/25/05; H Weber 1/10/06; RG Portis 1/10/06; A Birk
4/24/06, J uly 2006

Page 41
Sub. 1
Review of the design and performance of Vacuum Relief Valves

Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that dates within CPC-1250 need to be modified from
2012 to 2013. A revised CPC with the J uly 1, 2013 date shall be published.

This docket has been opened at the request of the NAR group and will be looking at the design and
performance of Vacuum Relief Valves.
At the October 2007 meeting, J . Perez reviewed the issues surrounding vacuum relief valves in
service. A TF was formed consisting of J Perez (Chr), L Loman, R J acob, M Clark, L Hopper, K
Thurman, N Krzanowsky, T Dekoning and M Richardson.
At the J anuary 2008 meeting, it was reported that there is a problem with vacuum relief valves
causing releases when cars are involved in rollover accidents. W. Schoonover reported other
problems with ethanol cars most likely because of incompatible gaskets. Also in the field there is a
tendency to use the VRV as a pressure release occasionally resulting in valve failure. The following
members were added to the TF; T. Mannas, P. Williams, R. Triche, and A.D. McKisic.
At the April 2008 meeting, J . Perez reported on TF discussions concerning the current VRV designs.
The issues of cycling and non-cycling styles were noted. It was reported that the railroads were
requesting that the repair and maintenance of these valves be looked at and improved. The TF has
begun collecting data to determine the performance gaps and will determine a path forward once that
is complete. FRA would like expedited action to identify and eliminate bad designs. Companies
volunteering to share data will contact J . Perez.

At the J uly 2008 meeting, it was reported that the TF has not met since the April 2008 meeting. A
request was made during the last meeting for car owners to forward information on the non-cycling
and cycling vacuum relief valves. Sunoco is the only company so far providing information. J . Perez
(UTLX) is requesting data from more shippers so that a valid conclusion can be reached. He indicated
that it is critical to gather specimens of valves that have failed in the field and identify the root cause.
The committee suggested that RESCAR might be a good source for failed vacuum relief valves. The
TF has developed a form to collect the data on failures and is looking for organizations to use it in the
collection of data. It was noted that AAR/BOE, NAR, and DOT-5800.1 forms might also be a good
source of data. It was mentioned that in a 90 degree rollover, leaks are often a result of defective
vacuum relief valve seals and that, although not a normal operating condition, the railroads would
like this issue addressed as it is a significant safety concern.

Via e-mail dated 9/2/08 some questions were raised about prototype valves and the root cause of
the valves that failed in a fairly new condition. Staff has contacted Midland to discuss the infant
mortality of valves but needs further explanation of prototype valves indicated in the Sunoco
report.

Page 42
Sub. 1

At the October 2008 meeting, it was reported that the TF has come to no conclusions to this point.
The charge of the task force is to review the design and performance of vacuum relief valves. The TF
reported that they have no data to support the idea that the cycling valve is better than the non-cycling
valve. It was mentioned by Norfolk Southern that this is a serious problem on their railroad. NS
representative also mentioned that they are willing to send the defective vacuum relief valves to a
valve manufacturer for root cause analysis. McKenzie manufacturing will work with NS and will
perform a failure analysis on the failed Vacuum Relief Valves (VRVs). FRA reported that when
failed valves are found by them they will return the valves to the owner.

A proposal was made by Norfolk Southern representative regarding vacuum relief valves. NS stated
vacuum relief valves should be removed permanently on cars built on or after December 31 2008.
The motion was defeated. There was an agreement that railroad and FRA inspectors will return
defective valves to the tank car owner who will be responsible for analysis. The Root Cause Analysis
reports will be sent to the FRA, AAR and TF.

At the J anuary 2009 meeting, J . Perez reported that the TF has reviewed why VRVs are required
from the view point of temperature changes, altitude changes, moisture content, and commodity. The
TF also referenced to the federal regulation requirements in 49 CFR Part 173.247 specific to bulk
packaging of certain elevated temperature materials as another reason that VRVs are needed.

T. Phemister will investigate into the data available in the one time movement approval database
which should provide a description of VRV failures to include the car number and commodity.

At the April 2009 meeting, J . Perez gave a presentation via PowerPoint.
TF is currently working on the following:
A proposal to the A/C working group that vacuum relief valves should be bench tested and the
bench test be documented, consider adding separate section under Appendix D for VRV.
Based on the root cause evidence, outside contamination found in the valves was typically due
to blast media in preparing the car for painting. Instead of creating a design criteria to resist
outside contamination, TF is working on a proposal to the A/C working group that all valves
and fittings should either be removed or protected during external blast and cleaning of tanks
cars.
TF is working on a design requirement that all new VRV designs shall be such that they
cannot be manually actuated. Existing fleets do not require immediate replacement of VRV,
however seeking replacement at next qualification.
TF is working on the start to open pressure requirements of VRVs from the .75 to 2-3 psi.
TF plans to have proposals by the October 2009 meeting.

At the J uly 2009 meeting, J . Perez reported that product compatibility issues are a major concern,
however this issue is so complex it will not be covered in the charge for this TF. It was noted that the
compatibility issues are the responsibility of the shippers. TF plans to have a proposal by the

Page 43
Sub. 1

October 2009 TCC meeting addressing the following issues:
The vacuum relief valve shall be bench tested and to include documentation of the test. It
would also include the negative vacuum rating as well as the high end 165 psi. TF will
review the appropriate ranges required for bench testing. Today there is no requirement for
low pressures. TF discussed the increase of set points typically at negative psi and talked
that it should be left up to the car design. Would like to remove the language how it is stated
of psi typical from the MSRP. A decision has not been made on what should change on the
set point but the proposal will clarify.

T. Phemister will provide root cause analysis reports to the TF as they become available. A little
over 20 inspection forms have been sent to J . Perez by industry; however the TF needs reports on
failed VRVs. The TCC agreed to issue a CPC in order to provide proper guidance on what is to be
done when a Vacuum Relief Valve failure occurs. J . Perez will work with K. Dorsey on the
appropriate CPC wording.

TCC let it be known that they were pleased with the TF efforts of this docket.

TCC requested that this information also be addressed at the August 09 Hazardous Materials (BOE)
Committee.

At the J anuary 2010 meeting, J . Perez reported on the revisions to the proposal which were made
available in the docket. The committee asked if the start-to-open pressure of a negative psig could
be changed to a negative 1 psig. J . Perez replied that the negative 1 psig would not provide
enough of a safety factor for certain tank cars (i.e. alcohol cars). J . Perez reported that there are no
reliable means to perform a vacuum bench test today; however there are companies developing
testing methods to perform such a test. The committee mentioned that the proposal can not be
approved until the manufacturers have a way to bench test vacuum relief valves. The Task Force has
been asked by the TCC to re-work sections 4.10.2 and 4.10.3 of the proposal.

At the April 2010 meeting, J . Perez discussed the proposal provided by the TF. The TF revised
sections 4.10.3 in regard to vacuum relief valve requirements and 4.10.4 in regard to the manually
actuated vacuum relief valves that must not be replaced in kind. Motion made, seconded, and passed
to move the amended proposal to the executive TCC for consideration.

The following revised proposal was received via e-mail dated 1/8/10 updated 3/25/10:

The Task Force T50.54 has reviewed the design and performance of Vacuum Relief Valves (VRV)
and offer five recommendations to the AAR Tank Car Committee. It must be emphasized that our
understanding of the leading causes of failures are related to chemical compatibility issues with the
seal and the valves NPT connection. Other task force groups are reviewing issues such as NPT
threads (T90.20) and O-ring issues (NAR Hardware Group).

1. New definition Add to Appendix A, 2.0 Definitions:
Start-to-open pressure (STO) - The pressure, measured at the valve inlet of a vacuum relief valve,
at which the relieved fluid is first detected at the down stream (internal to tank) of the valve seat.

Page 44
2. Proposed definition to Appendix A, 2.0 Definitions
Since the definition of vacuum relief valve already exists, proposal to change existing definition:
Current:
Pressure relief device - A device that is designed to prevent the rise of internal pressure in excess of
a specified value resulting from exposure to abnormal conditions. Pressure relief device is
synonymous with the expression safety relief device.

Proposed:
Pressure relief device - A device that is designed to prevent the rise of internal pressure in excess of
a specified value resulting from exposure to abnormal conditions. Except for a vacuum relief valve,
where the device is designed to prevent the drop of internal pressure in excess of a specified value
resulting from exposure to abnormal conditions. Pressure relief device is synonymous with the
expression safety relief device.

3. Proposed changes and additions to Appendix A, 4.10.x
Current:
4.10 Vacuum Relief Valve

4.10.1 Gravity-actuated vacuum relief valves must not be applied or replaced in kind.

4.10.2 Vacuum relief valves must be designed to seal bubble-tight down to the set negative pressure
(typically 0.75 psi [5.17 kPa]) and up to 100 psi (689 kPa) positive pressure. The integrity of the seal
must not be affected after opening the valve against 100 psi (689 kPa) positive pressure.

Proposed:
4.10 Vacuum Relief Valve

4.10.1 Gravity-actuated vacuum relief valves must not be applied or replaced in kind.

4.10.2 For vacuum relief valves installed prior to (date to be determined): Vacuum relief valves must
be designed to seal bubble-tight down to the start-to-open pressure and up to 100 psig (689 kPag).
The integrity of the seal must not be affected after opening the valve against 100 psig (689 kPag)
positive pressure. The minimum start-to-open pressure must be designed for negative 0.75 psig
(5.17 kPag).

4.10.3 Effective (date to be determine), for new tank car construction or at the time of the next
qualification of existing tank cars, vacuum relief valves must meet the following:
must be designed to seal bubble-tight down to the start-to-open pressure and up to
165 psig (1138 kPag).
The minimum start-to-open pressure must be designed for negative 0.75 psig (5.17
kPag).
must be designed so that they cannot be manually actuated from the outside.
start-to-open pressure; The permissible tolerance for start-to-open pressure are the
following:

Range for Start-to-Open (psig)
Permissible
Tolerance (psig)
Example of Tolerance applied to STO
Negative and up to negative 1
- and +0
psig
Given - psig, range is - to -1

Page 45
Negative 1 and up to negative 5 +/- psig
Given -2 psig, range is -1 to - 2
Greater vacuum than -5 psig +/- 1 psig
Given -6 psig, range is - 5 to - 7

4.10.4 Effective (date to determined), manually actuated vacuum relief valves must not be replaced
in kind.

4. Proposed changes and additions to Appendix D, 3.2.1-Definitions
Add to Appendix D, VRV Bench Testing for low pressure, vacuum and high pressures.
Open at the designed vacuum rating, tolerance range to be provided for each vacuum
rating.
Seal at low positive pressures, range of 2.0 to 3.0 psig
Seal at high positive pressure, typically between 100 to 165 psig.

Current: C-III, Appendix D 3.2.1
Bench Test
A leak test of a valve or fitting mounted on a test fixture to determine pressure retention integrity of
the valve or fitting and, if required, 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.
Except for pressure relief devices, valves and fittings are to be tested in both the open/plugged and
non-plugged closed positions. Afterward, the valve is tested on the tank to determine the integrity of
the fluid seal joint between the valve and the tank.
Reclosing pressure relief device: The purpose of this test is to ensure that start-to-discharge
pressure and vapor-tight pressure settings are within tolerance.

Proposed:
Bench Test
A leak test of a valve or fitting mounted on a test fixture to determine pressure retention integrity of
the valve or fitting and, if required, 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.
Except for pressure relief devices, valves and fittings are to be tested in both the
open/plugged and non-plugged closed positions. Afterward, the valve is tested on the tank to
determine the integrity of the fluid seal joint between the valve and the tank.
Reclosing pressure relief device: The purpose of this test is to ensure that start-to-discharge
pressure and vapor-tight pressure settings are within tolerance.
Vacuum relief valve: The valve is to be tested at three conditions
o start-to-open pressure; The permissible tolerance for start-to-open pressure are the
following:

Range for Start-to-Open (psig)
Permissible
Tolerance (psig)
Example of Tolerance applied to STO
Negative and up to negative 1
- and +0
psig
Given - psig, range is - to -1
Negative 1 and up to negative 5 +/- psig
Greater vacuum than -5 psig +/- 1 psig

Page 46
o low pressure, 2 to 3 psig;
o high pressure, 100 to 165 psig.

5. Proposed new to Appendix A
New wording for valves and fittings should either be removed or protected during external blast and
paint of tanks cars.

4.20 Process Protection Valves and Fittings
When stripping, preparing or applying an exterior protective coating, affected valves and fittings
must be removed or effectively protected.

At the J uly 2010 meeting, J . Perez discussed the proposal. There was a concern expressed about
whether negative psi vacuum stated in the proposal was enough; the consensus was that as written
represented an improvement in safety. The committee agreed to approve the proposal as written.
AAR will publish a CPC for comments on this change to M-1002.

At the October 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the approved proposal provided in the docket.
AAR plans to publish a CPC for comments on this change to M-1002.

At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that AAR plans to publish a CPC for comment on
the change to MSRP Section C-III. COD

At the April 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that the TF has completed their work and awaits
AARs publication of a CPC requesting comments for the changes to MSRP Section C Part III M-
1002.

At the J uly 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that the CPC is under final review by the editor. The
plan is to have the CPC published by the October TCC meeting.

At the October 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that the approved proposals were included in CPC-
1233 titled Request for Comments on the Revision of Chapter 2 and Appendices A, B, C and D of
M-1002 which was published on September 20, 2011. Ken stated that AAR has received
comments.

At the J anuary 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that AAR has received comments on CPC-1233
related to the design and performance of Vacuum Relief Valves (VRVs). K. Dorsey stated that the
negative psi valve spring is needed for aluminum and 60 psig tank test pressure tank cars. One
concern of the committee is how someone would know if the correct spring is installed in a vacuum
relief valve. AAR will research the old wording in M-1002 and CFR with the goal to resolve this
concern by the April TCC meeting.

At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the comments received on CPC-1223 related to
this docket. AAR will review recent comments received and once addressed will publish a final
CPC. Goal is to publish a CPC prior to J uly TCC meeting.

At the J uly 2012 meeting, AAR staff will provide a CPC for comment.

Page 47

Sub. 1

At the October 2012 meeting, COD pending publication of CPC

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that dates within CPC-1250 need to be modified from
2012 to 2013. A revised CPC with the J uly 1, 2013 date shall be published.

CURRENT TF: J Perez (Chr), L Loman, R J acob, M Clark, L Hopper, K Thurman, N Krzanowsky,
T Dekoning, M Richardson
CHARGE: Review of the design and performance of Vacuum Relief Valves and make
recommendations.

REFERENCES: J Perez 10/1/07, 3/4/08, 3/14/08, 4/3/08, 9/17.09, 1/8/10, 3/29/10; T. Mannas
9/2/08; T. Phemister 7/7/09, R J achim 9/29/09

Page 48
M/GDE
Safety Relief Devices Exposed to Commodity Surge

Recent Activity: See Below. Seek TF Chairman at April 2013 TCC meeting.

This docket was opened to investigate the effects commodity surging on safety relief devices that
protrude below the bottom of the mounting nozzle.

At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that this docket was opened to investigate the
effects of commodity surges on safety relief devices that protrude below the bottom of the mounting
nozzle. The commodity surges on these safety relief devices are causing valve spring stem failures.
TCC agreed to form a TF and will seek participation during the April 2011 TCC meeting.

At the April 2011 meeting, the following individuals were added to the Task Force: D. Prince, R.
Kazakewich, M. Nunez, R. J achim, AD McKisic, and P. Student (Chair)

At the J uly 2011 meeting, Susan Starks (FRA) will be added to the TF. A TF charge needs to be
established.

At the October 2011 meeting, no report provided COD

At the J anuary 2012 meeting, no report provided COD

At the April 2012 meeting, COD

At the J uly 2012 meeting, COD for TF work.

At the October 2012 meeting, no report provided. COD

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, the TCC will seek new TF chairman at the April 2013 TCC meeting.
P. Student will remain on the TF just not as chair. Remove Susan Starks from TF and add Karl
Alexy.

CURRENT TF: P. Student (Chair), D. Prince, R. Kazakewich, M. Nunez, R. J achim, AD McKisic,
K. Alexy

TF CHARGE: Investigate the effects of commodity surges on safety relief devices that protrude
below the bottom of the mounting nozzle.

REFERENCES:

Page 49
M/GDE
Effects of Environmental Harmonics on Safety Relief Devices

Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, the data has been given to the TF members to review. Remove Susan
Starks from TF and add Karl Alexy.

This docket was opened to investigate the effects of harmonics on safety relief devices. It has been
noted that environmental harmonics can cause catastrophic failure of safety relief devices. The
incidences were noted on 30,000 gallon tank cars.

At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that safety relief devices are catastrophically
failing due to environmental harmonics. F. Gonzalez stated that FRA is investigating the
environmental harmonics effects on safety relief devices. TCC agreed to form a TF and will seek
participation during the April 2011 TCC meeting.

At the April 2011 meeting, the following individuals were added to the Task Force: D. Prince, B.
Lacroix, T. Sisto, J . Fiori, AD McKisic, F. Gonzalez, and R. J achim (Chair)

At the J uly 2011 meeting, F. Gonzalez stated that FRA has plans to instrument a safety relief device
and install it on a tank car with the plan to conduct testing in August. Data should be available by the
October TCC meeting. Susan Starks will be added to the TF. A TF charge needs to be established.

At the October 2011 meeting, R. J achim stated that during a recent TF meeting some disagreement
between TF members occurred. Mr. J achim stated that it would benefit the TF if car owners would
collect data on these safety valve failures and provide the results to the TF. The TF asked if the NAR
data team could also provide the TF with any information related to failed safety relief valves. The
TF will analyze the data once it has been provided by the car owners and NAR data team. FRA
plans to instrument a tank car for in service data collection in the near future. TF hopes to have data
analyzed by the next TCC meeting.

At the J anuary 2012 meeting, F. Gonzalez reported that FRA instrumented a tank car and placed it
into service in order to collected data. Data collected so far includes both load and unloaded
scenarios. The unloaded data was collected when the car was located in the rear of the train and the
loaded data was collected when the car was located in the middle of the train. 32 G force was the
highest reading measured (peak to peak). Most of the higher values occurred in the longitudinal
direction. Top 20 readings appear to occur at a switches and bridges. The higher G forces occurred at
a frequency between 90-100 Hz while lower G forces occurred at a frequency in the 60 Hz range.
FRA plans to discuss the data with the task force to decide if further testing is needed. Tank Car
Committee commented a decision should not be made of this one run. All data should be provided to
the TF chair Rick J achim.

At the April 2012 meeting, R. J achim reported that the FRA over the road testing was completed and
data is being compiled. TF is working on a way to be able to provide the data FRA has without
releasing confidential information. The TF plans to have results to share by the J uly TCC.

Page 50
M/GDE

At the J uly 2012 meeting, the FRA report on the results obtained from the instrumented nozzle is
completed and is with S. Starks for review. Once she signed off on it, it will go to the TF for their
review and consideration.

At the October 2012 meeting, R. J achim reported that the FRA over the road testing is complete and
data is being compiled. Union Tank Car plans to have all the data analyzed by the J anuary 2013
TCC meeting.

AAR received the following charts on this docket via email on R. J achim on 10/10/2012

Page 51
M/GDE

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, the data has been given to the TF members to review. Remove Susan
Starks from TF and add Karl Alexy.

CURRENT TF: R. J achim (Chair), D. Prince, B. Lacroix, T. Sisto, J . Fiori, AD McKisic, F.
Gonzalez, K. Alexy, R. Simms, L. Loman

TF CHARGE: Collect, analyze and review data of field failures and determine commonalities.
Review AAR current design requirements of Appendix A. Review current AAR
design and testing requirements of safety valves in relation to recent in service
failures, with a focus on vibration and harmonics effects from the operating
service environment.

REFERENCES: R. J achim 10/10/12;

Page 52
April 2013 Docket: T55
Sub. 1
Service Trials

Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the table provided in the docket. There are some
intermodal valve manufactures interested in getting into tank car valves. A question was asked on
how many valves could be put on a service trial. There is no limit on the number of valves that can be
placed on a service trial.

Via e-mail dated 9/7/05. P. Kinnecom requested information concerning the teardown performance of
the valve in ST403.

At the October 2005 meeting, P. Kinnecom updated the committee on the current status of service
trials.

By e-mail dated 10/19/05, Salco requested permission for tear down inspection on Service Trial 405
in anticipation of meeting the trial parameters.

At the J uly 2006 meeting, P. Kinnecom proposed a teardown inspection for ST406 based on the end
users request. He will review ST401 and update the table. J . Lewis reported that the epoxy coated
springs being tested in anhydrous ammonia service on ST414 are holding up well. The valves had
other issues, however.

Via e-mail dated 5/12/06, the shipper/user of the devices on Service Trial 406 requested approval of
this device.

At the October 2006 meeting, P. Kinnecom updated the committee of service trial activity. He noted
that ST401 had been approved and that the epoxy coated spring was performing well despite issues
with other components of the trial valves.
At the J anuary 2007 meeting, P. Kinnecom reviewed the current status of service trials. He noted that
the teardown inspection of service trial 405 was not satisfactory and that a corrective action plan was
pending. Service trial 420 has been added to the table.

At the J uly 2007 meeting, P. Kinnecom updated the committee on the status of the current service
trials. The committee agreed that ST 405 would be complete two years from the 12/06 introduction of
the modified valve design. Midland will be asked to submit their next generation chlorine valve
design for committee approval. The number of valves in the trial will be handled at that time. J . Lewis
will represent the TCC at the tear down for ST 414.

At the October 2007 meeting, K. Dorsey gave an update on the status of service trials.
(Staff Note: The results of the tear down for ST407 and ST414 need to be discussed)

1. During the tear down inspection from ST 407, one valve of 5 valves tested was 1 psi outside
requirement. K. Dorsey will ask the company to comment on why the valve did not meet the
requirement. (Staff note: The proponent has responded to the question an a ballot will be issued
shortly.)

Page 53
Sub. 1
Service Trials

2. Epoxy coated springs in anhydrous ammonia service (ST413-414). Out of 5 valves inspected, 3
failed to re-close properly. One spring had a 1 piece of epoxy missing at the time of inspection. It
was note that this is a previously approved valve in new service. Staff will contact the proponent to
for an analysis of the epoxy performance, and will not approve for AA service until problems are
addressed.

3. K. Dorsey will review old service trials that are no longer active and determine if they can be
terminated.

At the April 2008 meeting, K. Dorsey updated the committee on Service trials.
(Staff Note: ST407 is still under consideration.)

At the J uly 2008 meeting the following was discussed.
1. ST-421 Engineering Controls the pressure of 280 was approved and are now performing another
service trial.
2. ST-422 Midland Manufacturing Valve Since the pressure plate is part of the 3 valve system the
unit then needs to be evaluated together. Valves were to be shipped on 7/14/2008 new scheduled
indicates August (25 car sets). First 10 are Oxy cars, second 10 on Dow plants, and last 5 are Bayer
cars. The dimensions will be published in a CI pamphlet.
The committee agreed to successfully terminate ST-407
It was suggested that a expiration date of service trial approval be added to the form. It was
mentioned that in M-1002 the service trial should only be good for a certain amount of time.

At the October 2008 meeting, it was reported that service trials in the system are allotted 2 years to be
initiated. After that period the service trial will be removed from the system and the proponent would
need to reapply for a service trial.

At the J anuary 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey reported inactive proponents need to be removed. Service
Trial (ST) 398 will be removed from the table. TCC mentioned that some service trials have
inadequate reporting. Quarterly reports are required after the service trial begins. K. Dorsey will send
a letter to the proponents reminding them that quarterly reports are required to keep the service trial
active. It will also be mentioned in the letter if 8 months pass with no report then the service trial will
be revoked and the cars will be stopped. The requirements for reporting during service trials will be
outlined and provided at the April 09 TCC meeting.

At the April 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that if no action is taken on service trial in 2 years, the
proponent will be asked if they are still interested in progressing it. If information is not received
within 2 weeks of the next tank car committee meeting, it will not be included in the docket.
Quarterly reports are due on all service trails. New pressure valve in chlorine service are being
installed.

Page 54
Sub. 1
Service Trials

At the J uly 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that two new service trials will start soon. One is
newly designed vacuum relief valve and the other is a Y-Thermowell cap with a wide fitting for a
thermal couple. AAR will need to review the electronics involved and set up a separate service trial
for that.

The Girard equipment valve of 165 psi has been AAR approved. Therefore ST403 with the same
design for a lower pressure of 75 psi should not need a new service trial.

At the October 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that there are no service trials at this time. A list of
service trials were provided in the docket. COD

It has been requested that ST 406 be considered complete without tear down. The device has been in
continual operation with no issues. This device has no internal moving parts to wear or fatigue.

At the J anuary 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on Service Trial 406. K. Dorsey explained that
there was a miscommunication at AAR in the past and a teardown was never performed on ST-406.
The TCC requested a teardown of ST-406. The device will need to be pulled from the car for
inspection. The AAR plans to use Andy Ash from the Railway Association of Canada for this
inspection. The TCC asked K. Dorsey to call Engineer Controls (ST-414) and request an update on
the status of the teardown.

(Staff note: ST-406 teardown was completed by A. Ash)

At the April 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that ST-406 teardown was completed by A. Ash from
the Railway Association of Canada. AAR is currently reviewing ST-405. AAR plans to update the
Service Trial table on the basis of section 1.4.8.1.5 stated in Chapter 1 of M-1002 which states;
Service history for a component covered by an AAR service trial authorization will be maintained
by the owner. Periodic reports will be submitted to the AAR as specified by the Tank Car
Committee. If a service trial has been initiated but not completed and no reports have been received
by AAR for a period of 2 years, the Tank Car Committee may, at its discretion, terminate the service
trial.

At the J uly 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed ST-404 and ST-405 tear down reports with the intent
to approve the two service trials. A motion was made, seconded, and approved by the TCC to allow
AAR to approval renewals of valves and fittings without the standard TCC balloting process. For new
valve/fitting applications AAR would continue to ballot the TCC.

K. Dorsey discussed that devices that are bolted to the car do not require approval (i.e. spools, blind
flanges, and pressure plates). Since there are no moving parts on these devices the question is do
devices that are bolted to the car need to be included in the approval process? The TCC agree to
establish a TF to review this topic.

Page 55
Sub. 1
Service Trials

At the October 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that there are two applications currently being
balloted that will result in service trials.

K. Dorsey discussed those devices that are bolted to the car do not require approval (i.e. spools,
blind flanges, and pressure plates). Since there are no moving parts on these devices the question is
do devices that are bolted to the car need to be included in the approval process. The TCC agreed to
establish a TF to review this topic.

At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on three recent valve/fitting applications that are
currently being balloted which if approved will result in one service trial. A. Ash stated that ST-406
is complete and should be removed from the list of Service Trials. The TCC stated that service trials
should be stopped if the proponent does not adhere to the reporting requirements stated in Chapter 1
of MSRP Section C-III. A motion was made, seconded, and passed to have AAR send letters to
those proponents that have not complied with the requirements as defined in Chapter 1 section 1.4.8
of MSRP Section C-III that their service trial has been cancelled.

At the April 2011 meeting, the TCC asked if AAR could clean-up the Service Trials listed in the
docket by contacting the recent applicants to determine if the Service Trial is still warranted. K
Dorsey reminded everyone who attended the meeting of the reporting requirements and those that
have service trials should contact AAR if they are or are not planning to continue with their service
trial.

Per section 1.4.8.1.5 of MSRP C-III M-1002 Service history for a component covered by an AAR
service trial authorization will be maintained by the owner. Periodic reports will be submitted to the
AAR as specified by the Tank Car Committee. If a service trial has been initiated but not completed
and no reports have been received by AAR for a period of 2 years, the Tank Car Committee may, at
its discretion, terminate the service trial.

At the J uly 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that AAR plans to perform a thorough review of all
outstanding service trials. K. Dorsey stated that a service trial number has been provided for the
Kelso for their clam shell design Manway Cover. Current AAR standards do not require manway
covers to be approved by the Tank Car Committee, however since this particular application requires
modifications to the manway nozzle a service trial was desired. The service trial will consist of 7
cars in closed loop service. The TCC asked that when time comes for the service trial tear down that
the FRA, TC, RAC, and BOE be present.

At the October 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the list of AAR service trials provided in the
docket. TCC asked for AAR to continue their review of outstanding service trials. K. Dorsey
reiterated the reporting requirements under AAR service trials and that if anyone has not provided
their reports within the requirements will be subject to cancellation.

Page 56
Sub. 1
Service Trials

At the J anuary 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the list of AAR service trials provided in the
docket. AAR continues to work on the service trials provided in the table by contacting the
proponents to see if their service trial is still needed. Ken stated that there is nothing written in the
AAR MSRP Section C Part III (M-1002) on adding cars to an existing service trial. At some point
we may want to discuss the policies and procedures behind service trials to include such a
requirement.

At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that updates have been provided to AAR and are
included in the table within the docket. AAR continues the effort of contacting those applicants on
the list to ensure a service trial is still desired.

At the J uly 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey summarized the current service trials. The TF listed should be
removed. The next docket will have an updated list.

At the October 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey summarized the current service trials. AAR continues to
work with proponents to on requirement to provide reports and/or teardowns when ready. Reports
have been provided since the J uly 2012 TCC meeting and the table has been update accordingly.

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the table provided in the docket. There are
some intermodal valve manufactures interested in getting into tank car valves. A question was asked
on how many valves could be put on a service trial. There is no limit on the number of valves that
can be placed on a service trial.

Page 57
Sub. 1
Service Trials

SERVICE
TRIAL
PROPONENT APPL. NO. CARS
DEVICE
DESCRIPTION
COMMODITY
DATE
APPLIED
LAST
REPORT
REMARKS
423
SALCO
PRODUCT
E089019 Parallel Tee Corrosives
426 McKenzie E087018 Flanged VRV 8/10 8/12
Approved
11.13.2012
429 Midland E092002 40 VRV Ammo/Nitrate 12/20/2011
433
Engineered
Controls
PRD099018 280.5 PRD AA 2/13/2012
Request
Made for
Final Tear
Down
434
Engineered
Controls
E099019 2-3 Valve AA 2/13/2012
Request
Made for
Final Tear
Down
435
Ohmart/Vega
Corporation
E109009
Electronic Tank
Level Sensor
Hazardous and
Non Hazardous
Commodities

436
Richter Chemie
Technik GmbH
E109001 1"-6" Ball Valve Corrosives
437 Midland MFG E102010 2" Angle Valve AA

Midland MFG E102011 3" Check Valve AA

Midland MFG PRD102012
PRD A-1403 and
A1406 Series

438
Kelso
Technologies
Inc.
PRD109022 PRD
Initial Ethanol
along with DOT
173 authorized
products
11/17/11 9/24/2012
439
Kelso
Technologies
Inc.
E119023
Manway
Application
8/16/11 4/17/2012
441
Kelso
Technologies
Inc.
PRD119027 PRD
Nitrogen
Fertilizer
Solution and
other Hazardous
and Non-
hazardous
chemical
4/25/12 9/24/2012
442
Salco Products,
Inc.
PRD119006 PRD Various

Page 58
Sub. 1
Service Trials

REFERENCES: PG Kinnecom 02/06/03, 03/24/03, 4/22/03, 10/14/04, 11/12/04, 9/7/05, 10/10/05,
10/11/05, 11/02/05X2, 11/09/05X2, 3/14/06, 4/14/06, 11/03/06, 11/14/06,
2/09/07, 6/07/07; AV Degutis 09/24/03, 8/17/07; K Crochet 4/4/03, 8/22/05,
11/23/05, 4/19/06, 10/22/06; J . Freiler 01/24/03, 01/29/03, 04/22/03, 10/16/03,
5/5/04, 11/11/04, 4/7/05, 4/12/05, 6/14/05, 10/13/05, 5/26/06, 11/13/06, 5/15/07;
K. J ohnson 4/1/04; B. LaCroix 02/07/03, 4/10/03, 3/29/04; T Dalrymple 02/09/03,
03/24/03; B. Dean 4/18/03, 10/09/03; T Beaulieu 6/05/03X2, 7/01/03X2, 3/29/04,
9/29/04; M Schubert 10/27/03, 04/01/04, 8/3/05, 10/11/05; S Desmeules 4/1/04,
4/1/05, 10/03/05; J Burelle 10/19/04; M Sapp 11/12/04; K Cook 10/18/04,
11/08/05, 8/9/06; D Maras 4/12/05; P Gubricky 4/15/05, 10/19/05; A. Crouse
10/11/05, 4/06/06, 9/29/06, 4/16/07; D. Gentile 10/05/05, 10/10/05, 1/18/06,
4/25/06, 8/18/06, 9/15/06, 11/06/06, 6/06/07, 7/10/07, 8/17/07; P Terencio
5/12/06; L. Gorman 4/17/06, 6/21/06; W J akubowski 11/02/06, 4/3/08; D. Healy
1/10/07; D Price 4/8/11; 8/19/11, 10/4/11

Page 59
Sub. 1
Tank Car Research Program/NTSB

Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, the RSI-AAR research program update was provided by T. Treichel
(handout provided). The FRA research project update was provided by F. Gonzalez via PowerPoint.
The TC/TDG research project update was provided by J P Gagnon (handout provided).

At the April 2012 meeting, the RSI-AAR research program update was provided by T. Treichel
(handout provided). The FRA research project update was provided by F. Gonzalez. The TC/TDG
research project update was provided by J P Gagnon (handout provided).

AFFTAC Thermal Model (T50.49)
Dr. Scott Runnels has completed a number of improvements to AFFTAC and more work is in
progress. Improved tank steel failure modeling is in place, based on high-temperature tests done by
the RSI-AAR Safety Project. Incorporation of new PRV liquid flow data from FRAs tests is nearly
completed. The model will undergo validation against high-fidelity thermodynamic models in
2012. A new beta version with the improved liquid flow code will be released not long after this
meeting.

Tank Car Reliability Research (T59.2)
Stub Sill Inspection Database: As of 3/31/12, the SS-3 database contained records on 191,338
inspections. 2,658 cars were added since J anuary 1. FRA is funding the development of a new
data collection program, the Tank Car Integrated Database (TCID), which will replace SS-3, R-1
and R-2 reporting requirements with one web-based portal. Sims Professional Engineers has
created the new system, and will maintain it and provide user support via funding from the RSI-
AAR Safety Project. Beta testing is complete. A rollout date will be selected at a meeting the day
before this one. SS-3 data collection continues until the new TCID program is implemented
industry-wide.

Thermal Protection Research & Modeling (T65.8)
Transport Canada, FRA and the Tank Car Safety Project have conducted tests related to the effects
of high temperatures on tank behavior. The results of three sets of tests on high-temperature steel
failure, tank and jacket steel emissivity, and liquid flow through pressure relief valves, are being
incorporated into the AFFTAC fire model as mentioned above. FRA is planning fire tests of small
tanks with total containment in 2012. Additional tasks are being prioritized by the T65.8 task
force, which will meet May 2.

Develop Standards for Ethanol and Crude Oil Cars (T87.6)
Performance of ethanol cars exposed to fire is of interest in the development of new design
standards, because of ethanols flammability and our experiences in some derailments in recent
years. Under this docket, the AFFTAC model was used to predict the fire performance of baseline
cars and various design changes related to thermal protection and pressure relief, so that these
could be evaluated for the eventual standard.

Page 60
Sub. 1

Tank Car Accident Damage Data
Most recently, the Projects accident data are being used to develop an analysis of bottom fitting
protection performance for the T10.7.5 task force. The Safety Projects Report RA-05-02 on
probabilities of lading loss in derailments will be updated and expanded in 2012, using the accident
data. Help with all data requests made by Sims Professional Engineers on behalf of the Tank Car
Safety Project is invaluable to providing the best data on tank car safety, and is much appreciated.

TD/TDG research project update:
J P Gagnon discussed the status of the projects which were listed in the docket.
Thermal protection analysis for the NGTC
Status: Final report is in publication process.
Tank car thermal protection fire tests: Emissivity
Status: Work is complete. Final report is in publication process
Domino effect multiple tank car rollover derailments phase I and phase II
Status: Final report will be published together in Spring of 2012
Assessing the toxicity risks of the transport of petroleum sour crude oil
Status: Work is in progress.
FRA research project update:
F. Gonzalez provided a PowerPoint presentation on the FRA research projects. F. Gonzalez
agreed to share the presentation with the members of the Tank Car Committee. Highlights from
the presentation are provided below:

Probability of Detection F. Gonzalez reported that staff from FRA, Transport Canada, and
AAR participated in training on Probability of Detection (POD) methods in Pueblo, CO the week
of November 28, 2011 at TTCI. Next step is to have additional shops perform NDT to these test
plates to complete the testing efforts.

Top Fittings Protection Phase III Correlate the test setup and procedure with the current FRA
requirement for new tank cars used for TIH transportation. Study the protection of fittings on a
base/current TIH pressure car under rollover conditions through analytical models. Evaluate the
fittings performance of a base/current TIH car through a rollover test.

Quantitative Assessment for Rail Hazmat Transportation Risks The FRA has a contract with
Booze Allen to complete a review the hazmat risk assessment work performed by Allen Bing. F.
Gonzalez went over the approach FRA has taken in the review of the hazmat risk assessment
work. The goal is have a baseline assessment published by J une 2012 followed by an analysis
conducted on tank car hazmat, and then a recommendation to the committee.

Comments were made by CI and AAR that the FRA current risk assessment does not include a
phase for consequence and that without it a true risk assessment cannot be complete.

At the J uly 2012 meeting, FRA: F. Gonzalez discussed the status of FRA research using the tables
in the docket. G. Garcia has left TTCI for Rocky Mountain Steel. TTCI plans to hire two people to
take his place to continue progressing the NDT project. A draft report on non-destructive testing is
being reviewed by FRA and will be distributed when it is complete. TTCI is still looking for smaller
companies to test on the crack detection panels to compare results and will be taking the test panels

Page 61
Sub. 1

to facilities. Non-pressure tank car fittings test program is shooting for November 2012 for the test to
take place. Tank Car Environment: Data has been collected on safety valves and S. Starks and
ENSCO are reviewing the data. Booz Allen has prepared a draft final report hazmat risk assessment.
Alan Bing is working with Booz Allen to finalize the report. FRA plans to circulate the findings to
the committee before releasing it for general publication. FRA has a draft final report on the data
collected during the impact study. They plan to make the information available to industry as soon as
possible. FRA has been concentrating on shell impactor modeling and will be expanding to heads in
the future. FRA has 6 tasks the have been identified for TWP-15 and is developing the statement of
work. FRA is also pursuing physical testing and have a contract with TTCI with Sharma and ARA
will also being part of this project. There is a need to obligate the money before the end of the year.
FRA is looking to develop the best practices for loading and unloading sulfur to reduce NARs there
will be field reviews by end of this year. Small scale fire testing (testing the concept of total
containment with sodium and potassium hydroxide) the RFPs have been issued and bids are being
evaluated. FRA hopes to have a contract by the end of August. DOT has begun the evaluation of
environmental factors that affect the start to discharge of PRVs. The data collected by the TCC TF
will be used as a starting point for this project. If the effects can be quantified the will be used to
address the NTSB recommendation for performance standards of in service pressure relief valves.

Todd Treichel gave a presentation on RSI-AAR project projects including tank car reliability
research, the update of RA-05-02 and tank car damage assessment data.
J P Gagnon: TC: J P gave a summary using information provided in the docket. TC is looking at how
much H2S would designate a crude oil as a TIH and how to determine the concentration.

At the October 2012 meeting, the RSI-AAR research program update was provided by T. Treichel
The TC/TDG research project update was provided by J P Gagnon (handout provided). Paul Stancil
provided an update on NTSB activities.

RSI-AAR research program update:
Dr. Scott Runnels has completed a number of improvements to AFFTAC and more work is in progress.
Improved tank steel failure modeling is in place, based on high-temperature tests done by the RSI-AAR
Safety Project. Both the new PRV liquid flow data from FRAs tests and the new high-temperature steel
performance test data have been incorporated into a new beta version. Validation against high-fidelity
thermodynamic models is underway. Documentation is being compiled for the current beta version.

SS-3 Database: As of 9/30/12, the SS-3 database contained records on 206,754 inspections. 13,711 cars
were added since J uly 1. FRA has funded the development of a new data collection program, the Tank
Car Integrated Database (TCID), which will replace SS-3, R-1 and R-2 reporting requirements with one
web-based portal. Sims Professional Engineers has created the new system, and will maintain it and
provide user support via funding from the RSI-AAR Safety Project. Beta testing is complete, and a last
few adjustments are being made. A Circular Letter containing instructions for submission of data is
being prepared. SS-3 data collection continues until the new TCID program is implemented industry-
wide.

Page 62
Sub. 1

Thermal Protection Research & Modeling (T65.8)
Transport Canada, FRA and the Tank Car Safety Project have conducted tests related to the
effects of high temperatures on tank behavior. The results of three sets of tests on high
temperature steel failure, tank and jacket steel emissivity, and liquid flow through pressure
relief valves, have now been incorporated into the AFFTAC fire model as mentioned above.
FRA is planning fire tests of small tanks with total containment in 2012. Additional tasks are
being prioritized by the T65.8 task force.

Update and Expansion of RA-05-02 Report on Conditional Probabilities of Release
The RSI-AAR Tank Car Safety Project is updating and expanding upon Report RA-05-02 from
2006, which provided estimates of the conditional probability of release (CPR) for a wide variety
of car specifications and configurations. The new estimates will be more accurate for cars in the
current and near future fleets, and the expanded scope will also support potential Advanced Tank
Car Collaborative Research Project (ATCCRP) tasks designed to create tools to predict the
performance of designs that do not yet exist in the fleet. The team is developing regression
models that include all the variables of interest and will capture their influence accurately.
Analysis is underway, to be completed by the end of the year.

Recently, the Projects accident data are being used to develop an analysis of bottom fitting protection
performance for the T10.7.5 task force. The revision of Report RA-05-02 mentioned above is using the
accident data. Help with all data requests made by Sims Professional Engineers on behalf of the Tank
Car Safety Project is invaluable to providing the best data on tank car safety, and is much appreciated.

At the October 2012 meeting, J P Gagnon summarized the research efforts which were included
in the docket. Available upon request is the investigation of multiple tank car rollover
derailments related to double shelf couplers and its solutions.

Canadian Crude Quality Technical Association is reviewing the methods current used to
determine the levels of H2S in Crude Oil. Once review is complete they will write a report. J P
mentioned that through his involvement in this effort it has become apparent that H2S levels
vary in both sour and sweet crude oil. Re-classification of crude oil could take place if it is
determined that it meets a different class of hazardous material (i.e. TIH).

J P mentioned that an equivalence certification has been granted to CN on LNG in a tank car
being used as a tender.

F. Gonzalez stated that the 2013 budget for FRA has been cut by 10%. F. Gonzalez provided the
FRA research project update via PowerPoint presentation. The purpose of FRA research projects
are to investigation ways to improve tank cars transporting hazardous materials. F. Gonzalez
summarized the current FRA research projects provided in the docket.

Page 63
Sub. 1

Top Fittings Protection project is in phase III. The upcoming test on November 8, 2012 will
include a 9mph roll over. Instrumentation will measure the forces and deflections seen by the
fittings, local tank shell, and protective structure.

Another project is the risk evaluation of the transportation of tank cars carrying hazardous
materials. Allen Bing and Booze Allen work on this effort. The goal is to have this report
finalized by the end of the year. Scope of work includes a three stage approach (baseline
evaluation, followed by analysis, and then a recommendation). The study will look at accident
frequency and the likelihood that a car will be derailed in an accident. The hazmat transportation
risk were modeled as a chain of events starting with a train accident and ending with the point of
the hazmat release (train accident, cars damaged or derailed, damage or derailed tank car
contains hazmat, tank car releases of hazmat).

Risk Analysis findings:
the highest counts for accidents, derailments, and hazmat releases all occur on the higher
track classes (class 4 and 5); however the highest rates occur at the lower track classes
(class 1, 2, and 3).

FRA stated that PTC provides only limited risk reduction because the vast majority of freight
train accidents are caused by non-PTC-preventable track and equipment defects. PTC has
a 6.7% accident reduction, 5.1% car derailment reduction

FRA stated that ECP brakes 5.3% accident reduction, 5.1% car derailment reduction

65% of freight train accident and 74% of freight train derailments are due to track and wheel
defects.

Industry asked what deliverables are expected in the final report. FRA responded with: the
probability of an accident, probability of damage, and probability of release.

TWP-14 Analysis of Different Impactor Threats and Impact Conditions: Analysis of different
size impactors, analysis of real world impactors (different sizes and shapes), analysis of real
world impacts performed a variety of analyses on oblique and off center impacts, and analysis of
real world threats (DHS solution for security)

TWP-15 Development of performance based testing requirements for railroad tank cars: develop
performance based standardization methodology for qualifying the puncture resistance of tank
car design (head and shell). A combination of modeling, component testing, and model
validation is being investigated to determine the best method for quantify structure performance.

Total containment fire test both small scale and medium scale testing. Received two proposals,
the proposals cost were too high to do all at once so the RFP will be broken down in segments so
that the work can continue based on the limited resources presently available.

Page 64
Sub. 1
LNG Locomotive Natural Gas Locomotive Technology Workshop was offer recently in
Chicago, IL sponsored by FRA and Argonne Laboratories. From the workshop FRA identified
the safety, fuel, and standard aspects of this effort.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/policy/2108.shtm is the location of FRA hazmat reports. NGRTC is
available and ATCCRP coming soon.

NSTB
At the October 2012 meeting, P. Stancil reported on the current NTSB recommendations. NTSB
recognizes and appreciates the effort of the TF looking at bottom outlet performance.

Tiskilwa, IL Derailment, October 2011: The technical draft is under review and is expected to be
completed by November 2012 and finalized in 2013. Laboratory work has been completed on
tank shell analysis.

Columbus, OH Derailment, J uly 2012: P. Stancil stated that 3 ethanol tank cars breached in this
derailment. NTSB is currently examining the tank car steels and once complete a draft
investigation report will commence. The expected completion of this report is October 2013.

A TCC member asked NTSB if they are looking into the chemical characteristics of the
denatured ethanol that is being shipped and are they aware of how the flashpoint can change
based on the denaturant. NSTB stated they have heard of this and at this point in time unsure if it
is being reviewed.

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, the RSI-AAR research program update was provided by T. Treichel
The TC/TDG research project update was provided by J P Gagnon (handout provided).

RSI-AAR research program update:
Dr. Scott Runnels has completed a number of improvements to AFFTAC and more work is in
progress. Improved tank steel failure modeling is in place, based on high-temperature tests done
by the RSI-AAR Safety Project. Both the new PRV liquid flow data from FRAs tests and the
new high-temperature steel performance test data have been incorporated into a new beta
version. Validation against high-fidelity thermodynamic models is underway. Documentation
is being compiled for the current beta version.

SS-3 Database: As of 12/31/12, the SS-3 database contained records on 209,479 inspections.
2,725 cars were added since October 1. FRA has funded the development of a new data
collection program, the Tank Car Integrated Database (TCID), which will replace SS-3, R-1
and R-2 reporting requirements with one web-based portal. Sims Professional Engineers has
created the new system, and will maintain it and provide user support via funding from the
RSI-AAR Safety Project. Beta testing is complete, and a last few adjustments are being made.
A Circular Letter containing instructions for submission of data is being prepared. Batch
upload of data is also being tested. SS-3 data collection continues until the new TCID program
is implemented industry-wide.

Page 65
Sub. 1

Update and Expansion of RA-05-02 Report on Conditional Probabilities of Release
The RSI-AAR Tank Car Safety Project, under the auspices of the Advanced Tank Car
Collaborative Research Project (ATCCRP), is updating and expanding upon Report RA-05-02
from 2006, which provided estimates of the conditional probability of release (CPR) for a wide
variety of car specifications and configurations. The new estimates will be more accurate for
cars in the current and near future fleets, and the expanded scope will also support other
ATCCRP tasks designed to create tools to predict the performance of designs that do not yet
exist in the fleet. The team is developing regression models that include all the variables of
interest and will capture their influence accurately. Analysis is to be completed by the end of 1
st

quarter 2013.

Recently, the Projects accident data have been used to develop an analysis of bottom fitting
protection performance for the T10.7.5 task force, and to assess the performance of half-height
head shields relative to full-height head shields. The revision of Report RA-05-02 mentioned
above is using the accident data. Help with all data requests made by Sims Professional
Engineers on behalf of the Tank Car Safety Project is invaluable to providing the best data on
tank car safety, and is much appreciated.

F. Gonzalez provided the FRA research project update via PowerPoint presentation. The purpose
of FRA research projects are to investigation ways to improve tank cars transporting hazardous
materials. F. Gonzalez summarized the current FRA research projects provided in the docket.

Top Fittings Protection project is in phase III. Roll over test occurred on November 8, 2012
which included a 9mph roll over. Instrumentation measured the forces and deflections seen by
the fittings, local tank shell, and protective structure.

Risk evaluation of the transportation of tank cars carrying hazardous materials: The study will
look at accident frequency and the likelihood that a car will be derailed in an accident. The
hazmat transportation risk were modeled as a chain of events starting with a train accident and
ending with the point of the hazmat release (train accident, cars damaged or derailed, damage or
derailed tank car contains hazmat, tank car releases of hazmat). Draft report was sent to certain
stakeholders seeking comments. Comments were received and are being addressed. Once all
comments are addressed a presentation will be provided to industry explaining the base line
study.

TWP-15 Development of performance based testing requirements for railroad tank cars: develop
performance based standardization methodology for qualifying the puncture resistance of tank
car design (head and shell). A combination of modeling, component testing, and model
validation is being investigated to determine the best method for quantify structure performance.

Stephane Garneau from TC provided an update on the research table provided in the background.

Page 66
Sub. 1

REFERENCES: T Treichel 4/09/04, 4/16/04, 7/18/04, 9/30/04X2, 10/22/04 (handout), 1/19/05
(handout), 4/20/05 (handout), 7/21/05 (handout), 10/19/05 (handout), 1/13/06,
4/19/06 (handout) , 7/18/06 (handout), 1/17/07 (handout), 4/18/07 (handout),
7/18/07 (handout), 10/11/07 (handout), 1/23/08 (handout), 7/116/08 (handout);
07/2011 (handout), 10/2011 (handout), D Dibble 3/22/05, 3/23/06, 7/6/06,
3/16/2012; F. Gonzalez 7/7/06, 1/17/07 (handout), 1/25/07, 7/18/07 (handout),
9/19/08, 4/2/12; J P Gagnon 9/29/08; B. DiBacco 3/22/12

Page 67
FRA Research Projects April 2013
(AAR received via email 4/5/2013 from F. Gonzalez)

Project Title Abstract Sponsor(s) Dockets Contractor(s)
Completion
Target
Status
Railroad Tank Car
Nondestructive Methods
Evaluation
Evaluation and validation of
nondestructive evaluation
methods for use on tank cars
and the quantification of the
NDE process to improve the
probability of defect
detection.
FRA AAR TTCI Ongoing
review of
other
procedures.
Draft report
under review.
New Task
Monitor at TTC.
Contract in
place for New
Phase.
Non-pressure tank car
fittings protection
Current research on more
robust concepts that could
protect fittings in more severe
accident scenarios. These
concepts include:
-Recession of the fittings
arrangements down below the
tank top shell surface; &
Using deflective geometry
through a structural roll bar
arrangement or a fabricated
skid welded through pads to
protect the fittings.
Initial simulations of these
concepts indicate that they
provide more significant
protection, especially at
higher speeds.
FRA (Note:
Results
to be
shared
with
TCC)
Sharma
Associates
Phase II
Completed.
Working on
Phase III
Report is under
final review.
Donated car by
ARL Baseline
Test performed
on November 8.
Tank Car Environment
Study
The main goal of this project
is to have the instrumented
tank car couple with the
FRAs T16 high-speed
research vehicle and record
the track geometry and train
handling along with the
trainloads to have a complete
picture of the environment.
FRA (Note:
Results
to be
shared
with
TCC)
ENSCO Ongoing Ongoing
Phase II
ongoing. A tank
car was
instrumented to
acquire data for
the valve. Data
provided to
manufacturers
New person in
FRA to review
the problem.
Hazmat Risk Assessment Develop a rail hazmat
transportation risk model and
associated risk metrics. Tasks:
1.-Estimate base case (2008)
rail hazmat transportation risk.
2.-Estimate risk reduction
after implementation of safety
requirements enacted in
2008/9, individually and in
combination
3.-Identify and evaluate
further opportunities for risk
reduction
FRA ICF, Booz Alan,
ENSCO
August 2013 Final review.
Received
comments, Alan
Bing will review
the comments
and FRA will
update the
report.
Evaluation of different
size impactors
The purpose of this task is to
evaluate the puncture
behaviors of tanks under a
more general range of impact
conditions and will help to
better understand the damaged
caused by the different
impactors on different tank
cars and should provide us
with
FRA ARA Completed Final Report
published.
DOT/FRA/ORD
-13/17

http://www.fra.do
t.gov/eLib/details
/L04420

Page 68
Project Title Abstract Sponsor(s) Dockets Contractor(s)
Completion
Target
Status
conclusions/recommendations
for performance tests for tank
head and shell for each
impactor.
Evaluation of Loading
and Unloading Operations
for Molten Sulphur Rail
Tank Cars
The FRA wants to work with
The Sulphur Institute and with
industry to reduce these
occurrences of solid sulphur
residue on molten sulphur rail
tank cars.
FRA TSI December
2013
Phase I and II
under way
Small Scale fire testing Demonstrate by scaled testing
that in rail tank cars loaded
with Sodium Hydroxide
solution (NaOH) or Potassium
Hydroxide solution (KOH)
solutions and not equipped
with a PRD can survive a
minimum of 100 minutes in a
pool fire without rupture or
otherwise release any lading.
FRA Sharma &
Associates, Dr.
Burke, The
Chlorine
Institute.
April 2015 Act Awarded.
Had first
meeting.
DEVELOPMENT OF
PERFORMANCED-
BASED TESTING
REQUIREMENTS FOR
RAILROAD TANK
CARS
The Government regulatory
agencies in the United States
and Canada want to manage,
conduct and support research
to establish performance-
based testing requirements
and to develop methods to
evaluate the crashworthiness
and structural integrity of
different tank car designs.
FRA/TC VOLPE, Sharma
& Associates,
TTC
First Phase
underway with
VOLPE,
Contract
awarded.
Planned meeting
in May
Evaluating the effects of
Environmental Factors on
PRV Performance
Docket #T88.8
concluded that errors up to
15 % were possible in
the measurement of the STD
pressure of PRVs due to the
inaccuracies in the gages
used. This was due to the
influence of several
environmental factors on the
gages and human error in
reading the numbers off the
gages. The objective of the
work is to evaluate,
quantitatively, the deviations
caused by
environmental factors (in
affecting the measuring
instrument, namely, the
pressure gage) in measuring
the STD and to determine
whether this error is as large
as suggested by the TCC.

FRA
/Midland
Manufacturi
ng
T88.8 VOLPE April 2014 Identify shops
that can help us
do the test.
Midland will
ship the valves
late May

Contact:
Francisco Gonzlez, III
Tank Car and Hazardous Materials Project Manager
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration
1200 New Jersey Ave SE, MS-20, Washington, DC 20590
francisco.gonzalez@dot.gov, Tel (202) 493-6076, Fax (202) 493-6333

Page 69
RSI-AAR Research Projects April 2013
(AAR received via email on 4/5/2013 from T. Treichel)

Project Title Abstract Sponsor(s) Dockets Contractors
Completion
Target
Status
AFFTAC thermal model
improvements
A variety of upgrades
being made to the
model will improve its
use as a research tool
and a planning tool for
future fire tests.
RSI-AAR T50.49 Scott Runnels
Associates
Various New Beta version
posted with improved
models for steel failure
at high temperature
and for liquid flow.
New process for
acceptance testing in
place. Validation
against high-fidelity
models underway.
Updated
documentation being
developed. Third party
review underway.
Development of new Tank
Car Integrated Database
(TCID)
FRA is funding the
development. The
RSI-AAR Safety
Project has added
funds to import SS-
2/SS-3 data and
replace paper R-1 and
R-2 forms. The Safety
Project will fund the
ongoing data collection
process.
FRA and
RSI-AAR
T59.2 Sims
Professional
Engineers
Development
complete.
Beta test is completed.
Minor changes
completed. Batch
upload process for
large fleet owners
being defined.
Update and expand study of
conditional probabilities of
release
In 2012 the RSI-AAR
Safety Project will
replace its Report RA-
05-02 with an updated
study incorporating a
broader group of
variables pertinent to
tank car accident
performance
RSI-AAR n/a U. of Illinois
at Urbana-
Champaign
End of April Statistical modeling
being completed.

Contact:
Todd Treichel, Director RSI-AAR Railroad Tank Car Safety Research & Test Project
(540) 822-4800, ttreichel@aar.org

Page 70
Transport Canada Research update January 2013
(AAR received via email on 10/1/2012 from B. DiBacco)
Project Title Abstract Sponsor Contractor Target Status
Thermal protection
analysis for the Next
Generation Tank Car
Determine the thermal behavior of multi
layered foam and steel jacket systems
and compare against Federal fire test
requirements for thermal protection.
TC A.M. Birk
Engineering
Completed Final report is in
publication process.
Tank Car Thermal
Protection Fire Tests:
Emissivity
The goal is to obtain a better
understanding of the models and
parameters to be used in programs such
as AFFTAC when describing the heat
transfer phenomena taking place in the
vapor space of a tank car during a fire.
Phase 1 concentrated on measuring LPG
tank and jacket steel emissivity.
Phase 2 involved validating the results of
Phase 1 and measuring tank and jacket
steel emissivity at elevated temperatures.
TC National
Research
Council of
Canada
(NRC)
Completed

Final report is in
publication process
available upon request.
Domino Effect -
Multiple tank car
rollover derailments
Phases 1 and 2
The objective is to examine and
determine effective solutions to reduce
coupler-associated multiple tank car
rollover derailments.
Phase 1 includes:
a literature review of accident
reports to look at the involvement of
both empty and full tank cars in this
phenomenon;
a theoretical analysis of potential
derailment mechanisms;
discussion on potential solutions.
Phase 2 includes:
Energy analysis calculations
3 Full-scale rollover tests 1
baseline with standard couplers and
2 tests using a rotary double-shelf
coupler connection
Test data analysis

TC National
Research
Council of
Canada
(NRC)
Fall 2012 Phase 1 is completed -
final report is available
upon request.

Phase 2 is completed
report has been
finalized.

Final project report
(phases 1 and 2) will
be published together
in Spring 2012.
Assessing the Toxicity
Risks of the Transport
of Petroleum Sour
Crude Oil
TC is working with the Canadian Crude
Quality Technical Association (CCQTA)
on two projects:
1. Develop a standardized, practical
method to measure H2S concentration
in crude oil samples.
http://www.ccqta.com/methods.php?a
nalytical_id=8
2. Develop a computer model and
nomographs that can be used by field
operators to estimate the
concentration of H2S gas that evolves
into the vapour space of a
transportation container under
equilibrium conditions. Validate the
computer model through lab testing of
crude oil samples under set
conditions.

Future work by TC: clarification of
classification requirements for crude oil
in the TDG Regulations.
TC /
CCQTA

Projects 1
and 2:
Canadian
Crude
Technical
Quality
Association
(CCQTA)
Spring/Sum
mer 2013
Project 1: Final report
is available.
http://www.ccqta.com/
files/H2Smeasurement
report_final.pdf

Project 2: Final report
will be available once
model validation work
is completed (likely
Spring 2013).

Validation work: In-
progress.

Classification work:
TDG has begun a
review of classification
options.

Page 71

TC/TDG Rail Technical Research Reports
More information on some of these projects is available at:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/innovation/tdc-projects-dgoods-menu.htm
or as listed below.

Report Number Report Title
Tank Car Impact Analysis
Tank Car Stub Sill Analysis, Executive Summary, National Research Council (NRC), Centre for Surface
Transportation Technology, December 1996
TP 13062 Dynamic Structural Characterization of Stub Sill Tank Cars Utilizing ADAMS & ANSYS Simulation Models:
Report 1 - The ADAMS System Dynamic Model - Its Validation and Application to the Characterization of
Impact Forces, NCR, March 1997
Report 2 - ANSYS Finite Element Modeling - Its Validation & Application to the Characterization of Impact
Forces, NRC, March 1997
TP 13063 Tank Car Derailment Analysis, NRC, March 1997
TP 13192E Transport Canada Multi Tank Car Impact Tests And Analysis
Report 1 - Yard Impact Testing, NRC, March 1998
TP 13359E Multi Tank Car Impact Tests & Analysis
Report 3 - ADAMS Model Simulations of Tank Car Impact, NRC, October 1998
TP 14122E Low Cycle High Load Tank Car Impact Tests, NRC, December 2003
TP 14139E Low Temperature Impact Effect on Tank Cars, Southwest Research Institute/National Research Council Canada, April
2003.
BLEVE Tests/Video
TP 12498E Fire Tests of Propane Tanks to Study BLEVEs & Other Thermal Ruptures: Detailed Analysis of Medium Scale Test
Results, Queen's University, November 1997
TP 13649E-3
Now available online
BLEVE: Response and Prevention (DVD) available for viewing or ordering at:
http://shop.tc.gc.ca/TChtml/ibeCCtpItmDspRte.jsp?item=66083&language=US
Pressure Relief Valve Testing
TP 12978E Evaluation of Dangerous Goods Pressure Relief Valve Performance Phase 2 - Air Test Results
Addendum - C312-1 Series Results & Analysis, Queen's University, December 1997
TP 13088E Evaluation of Dangerous Goods Pressure Relief Valve Performance Phase 2 - Steam-Based Tests: Preliminary
Results, Queen's University, December 1997
TP 13259E Evaluation of Dangerous Goods Pressure Relief Valve Performance Phase 2 - Small Vessel PRV Tests, Queen's
University, April 1998
TP 13376E Evaluation of Dangerous Goods Pressure Relief Valve Performance Phase 2 - 2 and 3 NPT Tanker Truck PRV
Tests, Queen's University, J anuary 1999
TP 13377E Evaluation of Dangerous Goods Pressure Relief Valve Performance Phase 2 - Two-Phase Energy Storage Study
Preliminary Results, Queen's University, February 1999
TP 14045E PRV Field Trials The Effects of Fire Conditions and PRV Blowdown on Propane Tank Survivability in a Fire,
Queens University, J anuary 2003.
Tank Car Thermal Protection Analysis
TP 13203E Thermographic Inspection of Tank Car Thermal Insulation, A.M. Birk Engineering, March 1998
TP 13518E Tank-Car Insulation Defect Assessment Criteria: Thermal Analysis of Defects, A.M. Birk Engineering, March 2000.
TP 13539E Review of AFFTAC Thermal Model, A.M. Birk Engineering, J anuary 2000.
TP 14066E Burner Tests on Defective Thermal Protection Systems, Queens University, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
2003.
TP 14356E High temperature stress-rupture tests of sample tank-car steels, Queens University, December 2004.
TP 14357E Computational fluid dynamics analysis of local heating of propane tanks, Queens University, December 2004.
TP 14366E Tank-car thermal protection defect assessment: fire tests of 500-gallon tanks with thermal protection defects, Queens
University, March 2005.
TP 14367E Tank-car thermal protection defect assessment: Updated thermal modelling with results of fire testing Summary
report, A.M. Birk Engineering, March 2005.
TP 14368E Thermal model upgrade for the analysis of defective thermal protection systems, A.M. Birk Engineering, J anuary
2005.
TP 14561E Fire testing and computer modelling of rail tank-cars engulfed in fires: Literature review, A.M. Birk Engineering,
March 2006.
TP 14631E Detailed Plan and Design for Full-Scale Fire Tests of Thermally Protected 112J -Type Rail Tank Cars, Queens
University, November 2006.
Tank Container Impact Standard Development
TP 13127E Development of a Tank Container Impact Test Standard, TES & NRC, November 1997.
TP 13307E Tank Container Impact Standard, Phase II Report, NRC, September 1998.

Page 72
B. Miscellaneous
TP 14690E Evaluation of Risk Associated with Stationary Dangerous Goods Railway Cars, Transys Research Ltd, March 2007.
Available upon request Investigation of Multiple Tank Car Rollover Derailments Related to Double Shelf Couplers and its Solutions, Centre
for Surface Transportation Technology of National Research Council Canada, March 2009.
Available upon request The Last Resort Vent and Burn DVD - TDG Highway Tank Vent and Burn Project
N/A Canadian Crude Quality Technical Association - H2S in Crude Measurement Report
http://www.ccqta.com/methods.php?analytical_id=8

Contact for information or a report copy:
J ean-Pierre Gagnon : (613) 998-5267 jean-pierre.gagnon@tc.gc.ca
Barbara Di Bacco : (613) 990-5883 barbara.dibacco@tc.gc.ca

Page 73
Sub. 1
Government Regulations

Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, Stephane Garneau provided an updates on TC/TDGR activities. K.
Alexy provided an update on FRA activities. C. West Freeman provided an update on PHMSA
activities.

At the April 2012 meeting, J P Gagnon provided an updates on TC/TDGR activities (handout
provided). K. Alexy provided an update on FRA activities. Cheryl West Freeman provided an update
on PHMSA activities. Paul Stancil provided an update on NTSB activities.

TC/TDG
J P Gagnon stated that Amendment 9 to the TDG regulations was published in Canada Gazette II
on March 16, 2011 and became effective on that date. The changes include the adoption of
CGSB-43.147-2008 Amendment 1 and the adoption of tank car tank deformation criteria (dents
& buckles). The CGSB-43.147-2005 Standard and Amendment 1 are about to be replaced by an
in house Transport Canada Standard, which will subsequently be adopted by reference in the
TDG regulations.

J P stated that 180 Temporary Certificates have been issued in the past 30 months. Within the
handout provide there was a current list of tank car related equivalency certificates.

FRA
K. Alexy provided an update via a PowerPoint presentation. Below are the highlights:

Useful Links:
Hazardous Materials Compliance Manual:
www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/HazmatComManual82011.pdf

Movement Approvals: www.fra.dot.gov/rrs/pages/fp_1799.shtml

Hazardous Material Guidance Documents: www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/789.shtml

Tank Car Committee Handouts: www.fra.dot.gov/rrs/pages/fp_1803.shtml

Page 74
Sub. 1
Government Regulations (Cont.)

Personnel Changes:
New personnel
o Kurt Eichenlaub Specialist
o Don Isler - Specialist
o Richard Tarr Specialist (on detail from PHMSA)
FRA Senior Leadership:
o Bill Schoonover is now the Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations at
PHMSA. Since his departure the Hazardous Materials Division Staff Director
position has been filled on a temporary rotating basis. Susan Starks is currently the
acting Staff Director

Federal Register:
o Removal of special permit markings - 77FR4271 (1/27/12): On J anuary 25, 2011,
FRA published a Federal Register notice stating that markings on tank cars related to
certain gross weight on rail (GRL) Special Permits that had been incorporated into the
hazardous materials regulations (HMR) by a Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) rulemaking were required to be removed or obliterated by
J anuary 25, 2012, or at each subject tank cars first shopping event, whichever
occurred first. This notice relieves tank car owners from that previously stated
deadline and extends the time for removal of the markings until the date of each
subject tank cars next required qualification

o OTMA process notification (HMG-127) - 77FR10799 (2/23/12): The original version
of HMG-127 was effective J anuary 31, 2012. The first revision was effective March
27, 2012. The revised version included a flow chart to clarify the intent and
requirements of the document. The revised document has been posted on the FRAs
website.

o Odorant fade 77 FR 22381 (4/13/12): FRA has issued Safety Advisory 201201 to
remind shippers and consignees of railroad tank cars containing odorized liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG), of the importance of taking actions to ensure that a sufficient
level of odorant remains in the LPG throughout the entire transportation cycle.

Tank Car Quality Assurance Team
o Since the October meeting the FRAs Tank Car Facility Quality Assurance Team has
audited 51 registered and certified facilities. Six of the facilities withdrew their
registration and one facility withdrew it certification. In addition, 670 cars have been
or are going to be returned to a facility for corrective repairs. Table 2 provides a
summary of the Tank Car Facility Quality Assurance Team inspection results since
the fall Tank Car Committee meeting related specifically to the QA program.

Task Force T87.6
o The design task force met six times between August and December, followed by a
final call on February 15 to finalize the recommendations. The operations task force
met three times between October and December.

Page 75
Sub. 1

Safety Advisory on Odorant Fade in Railroad Tank Cars
o FRA issued a notice in the Federal Register to raise awareness within the hazardous
materials community of the potential consequences of having LPG reach end-users as
under-odorized or essentially non-odorized material due to the diminishment of the
added odorant during the transportation cycle (commonly known as odorant fade).

Miscellaneous
o It has been brought to FRAs attention that the regulations are inconsistent in
terminology for shipping names. FRA suggests AAR submit a petition for rulemaking
to address these inconstancies.

o Recently FRA has become aware of issues related to the transloading of cargo tank to
tank cars. The issues include proper classification of the lading and difficulty
complying with the requirements of 173.24b(a) Outage and filling limits. PHMSA
will be publishing a final rule related to loading and unloading of cargo tanks.

o A question was posed regarding a common scenario in tank car construction. The
scenario is that builders are creating a Certificate of Construction for each individual
tank car in a series of identical cars rather than one certificate for the entire series.
This is occurring in order to comply with 49 CFR 179.5(a) which requires a
Certificate of Construction to be submitted to the AAR prior to a tank car being
placed into service. By issuing individual certificates for each car the first cars
produced can be placed into service right away rather than waiting until the last car is
completed, final QA signoff performed, and the series certificate submitted to the
AAR. This has created an unnecessary administrative burden. The question was
regarding the options for AAR. FRA agrees that it is burdensome to collect and
manage certificates of construction for individual cars in a series of identical cars. As
such, FRA would take no exception if the tank car builder continued to produce a
Certificate of Construction for each car and maintain the document at the facility of
construction then upon completion of the final car in that series submit the Certificate
of Construction for the entire car series to the AAR. During construction of the series,
if a request is made for a certificate for a completed and released car, the AAR can
refer the requesting party to the car builder. Prior to placing the first car in a series
into service, the builder shall submit a draft Certificate of Construction to the AAR.
In the draft there will be a note indicating that individual certificates can be obtained
from the builder and that the final, signed certificate will be sent to the AAR upon
completion of the last car in the series. It is very important that the builder maintain
the completed certificates and be able to produce them upon request.

Page 76
Sub. 1

PHMSA
Cheryl West Freeman reported on tank car loading and unloading rule, HM-216B, and the
petition and recommendation from AAR on DOT-111 tank cars transporting PG I and PGII
hazardous materials.
Tank Car Loading and Unloading Rule: PHMSA is working on a final rule.
HM-216B: PHMSA is to publish final rule soon
DOT-111 PGI and PGII petition and T87.6 recommendation: PHMSA has acknowledged
receiving all documents in this matter. There was no indication however of when a
rulemaking will be published. Cheryl mentioned that there may be several petitions included
into one rulemaking and this would be included within that. Cheryl stated that PHMSA
recommended to the Office of the Secretary of Transportation a rulemaking process.

NTSB
Paul Stancil provided a presentation on the Cherry Valley (Rockford) Illinois, J une 19, 2009
incident titled Tank Car Crashworthiness and NTSB Recommendations. P. Stancil provided
AAR with a PDF version of the presentation that can be shared with AAR Tank Car Committee.

NTSB Recommendations:
1. TO PHMSA: Require that all newly manufactured and existing general service tank cars
authorized for ethanol and crude oil in PG I and II have enhanced tank head and shell
puncture resistance systems and top fittings protection that exceed existing design
requirements for DOT-111 tank cars.
2. TO PHMSA: Require that all bottom outlet valves used on newly manufactured and existing
non-pressure tank cars are designed to remain closed during accidents in which the valve and
operating handle are subjected to impact forces.
3. TO AAR: Review the design requirements in the AAR MSRP C-III, Specifications for Tank
Cars for Attaching Center Sills or Draft Sills, and revise those requirements as needed to
ensure that appropriate distances between the welds attaching the draft sill to the
reinforcement pads and the welds attaching the reinforcement pads to the tank are maintained
in all directions, including the longitudinal direction.
4. TO PHMSA: Require that all newly manufactured and existing tank cars authorized for
transportation of hazardous materials have center sill or draft sill attachment designs that
conform to the revised Association of American Railroads design requirements adopted as a
result of recommendation 3 above.

More information on this incident can be found using the following web links:

Docket: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/dms.html
Accident Report: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/reports.html

Page 77
Sub. 1

At the J uly 2012 meeting, J .P Gagnon reported that TC will have some job reductions. Operating
budget has been reduced. Geoff Oliver will head up research and risk. Enforcement and emergency
response is losing at least one job. Regulatory group has also been hit. Currently there are 4 positions
at this time Zenon Lewicky has left and two of four positions will be eliminated. J P and Kevin Green
will be leaving. March 1, 2013. Stephan Garno will end up with J Ps responsibilities. Marie France
Dagenais is on three month leave of absence. J P hopes to finalize the TC (old CGSB) standard
before he goes.

K. Alexy reported that J . Strang is back at FRA. Bonnie Murphy has taken Michael Loges spot in
field operations. The one time movement approvals guidance document has received a lot of
feedback from industry. FRA is trying to address issues by end of September. As of the J uly meeting
FRA has gotten 853 MAs year to date and are on pace for 1,800, (a new record) this year. It takes
approximately one month to progress a MA at the present time. The length of time is increased by
FRA having to ask for additional information from the proponent. J P Gagnon reported that CGSB
standard has a process in 25.7.3 which industry might want DOT to adopt as it allows the repair of
cars in transit allowing it to be transported to destination.
Tank Car QA team is shooting to get to every certified and registered facility in a three year time
frame. The inspectors report that the biggest issues currently are document control, training
measuring, ID, traceability and testing.

C. West Freeman reported that HM-216B final rule has been published. Office of Research has a
new director C. Leblanc (formerly DOD). There is a group in hazmat safety which is working on
bringing SPs into regulations via a miscellaneous rulemaking. The ANPRM is being progressed for
the packing group I & II cars with special emphasis on cars transporting ethanol and crude oil. K.
Dorsey reported that there is a request to evaluate the safety of double stacking intermodal portable
tanks transporting hazardous material (currently not allowed by regulation).

At the October 2012 meeting, J P Gagnon provided an updates on TC/TDGR activities (handout
provided). K. Alexy provided an update on FRA activities via PowerPoint. L. Majors provided an
update on PHMSA activities.

TC/TDG
J P summarized the next steps involved with replacement of the CGSB standard by an in house
Transport Canada Standard, which will subsequently be adopted by reference in the TDG
regulations. A revised draft version of the document will be sent to stakeholders in early
December 2012 in preparation for a meeting to take place in Ottawa either the second or fourth
week in J anuary 2013. The purpose of the meeting will be to review the document and discuss
proposed new changes since 2009, among which incorporate the stub sill inspection
requirements, widening the 286,000 GRL allowances for tank cars, provide allowance for one
time movement of non-conforming tank cars and ton containers for situations or under
conditions that present low risk, incorporation of new requirements for Packing Group I and II
commodities as per the AAR petition, tank car attachments, insulation system performance and
outage limits, tolerance for solidified residue on external services, liquefied natural gas
transportation in tank cars.

Page 78
Sub. 1

Temporary Certificates (similar to FRA movement approvals) approximately 215 issued in 36
months. These temporary certificates are allowed under the new TDG act but there must be in
the public interest to receive approval. Temporary certificates authorize an activity to be carried
out in a manner that does not comply with this the TDG Act. Repairing on site is definitely
preferred and encouraged.

TDG Directorate Re-Organization:
Federal Government workforce adjustment initiative was discussed by J P.
Engineering Services of TDG Regulatory Affairs Group severely affected:
1 Chief of Engineering Services position disappearing: Zenon Lewycky
2 Two of 4 senior engineering positions disappearing: Superintendents of railway tank cars and
Highway tanks retiring after March 1 2013: J P Gagnon and Kevin Green
Remaining two superintendents and existing support staff will cover the 4 functions as follows:
Pascal Verville: Cylinders and Highway tanks
Stephane Garneau: Packaging and Rail and Tank car matters

FRA
Personnel Update
J o Strang Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer
Bob Lauby Deputy Associate administrator for regulatory and legislative operations
Ron Hynes Director for the Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance
Bonnie Murphy Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety and Compliance and Program
Implementation

HM Staff:
Staff director Karl Alexy
Interviewing for an engineer position
Specialist Richard Tarr returned to PHMSA
Temporary Victoria Hieghtman

OTMA
Karl Alexy summarized the history of OTMAs.
1985 Tank cars only, no approval language
1996 Approval language for tank cars only
2000 Expanded approval language to cover all bulk packagings
J anuary 31, 2012 HMG-127
March 27, 2012 HMG-127 Rev 1

New revision to HMG-127 is expected to be published soon. Within the new revision OTMA-1s
are the catch-all not OTMA-3s. If it is not specifically address under OTMA-2 or OTMA-3 then
it will need an OTMA-1. If you have a NAR, it is under the discretion of the FRA HM Specialist
at FRA Headquarters. OTMA-3s are for standing approvals and when FRA is notified of such
movement the applicant will not have to wait for a response before the package can be moved.
The requirement will allow the applicant to move under OTMA-3 as long as the applicant
notifies FRA first.

Page 79
Sub. 1

Data:
Number of NARs to date: 583 NARs
Number of OTMAs to date: 1716
Categories of OTMA issued: (2012 categories 52% OTMA-1, 36% OTMA-3, and 12% OTMA-
2)
Defects: Largest amount of OTMAs relate to bottom outlets, followed by liquid line, manway,
and PRDs.
Success Stories:
Found Non-specification fasteners
Found Tank cars sent to non-registered/certified facilities
Found Dry disconnect fittings and damaging valves
Defects found on first load (following qualification and following construction)
Found challenges with manway safety bolts
Found challenges with gasket compatibility

Difficulties:
Information being provided on the request for approval
Wrong Tank Car Specifications (i.e. 113J 114J )
Wrong Description of nonconforming conditions
Measures being taken to ensure the tank car not leaking are not being identified in the request

Understanding of HMG-127
OTMA-3
Waiting for approval
Specific non-complying conditions
PLEASE NOTE: The actual form is not required to be sent in but the information on the
document must be sent in in whichever format is easiest.

Root Cause Analysis:
Example 1
In lieu of sending the RCA, which was never completed, FRA received a 7.1/7.2
referencing the lack of information.

Industry concerns:
Inconsistencies and number of Revisions

HM-216B
Owner (Tank Car, Service Equipment, Lining/coating responsibility)
Quality Assurance Program
Qualification Program
Qualification vs. Maintenance
180.503 (if any maintenance is done that is part of the qualification program it has to be
qualified after the maintenance event) maintenance events have to be identified in the
qualification program. NAR is objective evidence that the qualification timeframe needs to be
review and determine if an adjustment needs to be made.

Page 80
Sub. 1

Tank Car Quality Assurance Team 108 facilities remain to be audited between now and the end
of fiscal year 2013.

PHMSA
Lenard majors reported on the following
HM-216B (Final Rule)
Revised 179.13(b) (Approval by Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, FRA)
Revised 174.63 (c) (2) Eliminated AAR600 (The tank and flatcar must comply with the
applicable requirements of the HMR concerning their specification.)

HM-218G Hope to have final rule by December which will address:
Molten Sulphur Rail Tank Car Guidance Document
Shipping paper requirements to permit residue: last contained
Training recordkeeping requirements

2012 ERG has been published

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, Stephane Garneau provided an updates on TC/TDGR activities. K.
Alexy provided an update on FRA activities. C. West Freeman provided an update on PHMSA
activities.
Stephane Garneau stated that a meeting is scheduled for February 12-13, 2013 in Ottawa, ON. Draft
document will be sent early next week along with the agenda. TC is still looking into the H2S
release from petroleum crude oil and if it needs to be classified as a TIH. Report is expected to out in
the spring of 2013.

Karl Alexy provided the following report:
HMG-127 Revision 2 came out in October 31, 2012. Any comments should be sent to Karl Alexy.
2300 OTMAs were granted in 2012 compared to 1000 in 2011. Two or three week is the average
process time for an OTMA-1 or OTMA-2 request. FRA is looking into an on-line application
process for OTMAs.

Susan Starks is now working for another part of the government. Dr. Phani Raj has been hired to fill
a position as tank car engineer at FRA. Efforts continue to audit certified and registered tank car
facilities. In J une the FRA is putting on a NAR Seminar in Reno, NV.

K. Alexy mentioned that there are concerns around the classification of petroleum crude oil which
then raises concerns around the proper packaging selected based on the determined classification.
FRA is still evaluating the use of 286K GRL in AAR 211.

C. West Freeman stated that HM-218G is expected to be published soon. HM-215K was published
recently addressing appeals. No decision has been made or published on HM-251 which is to address
the petition for packing group I and II tank cars.
REFERENCES: J P Gagnon 4/28/03(handout), 10/22/03 (handout), 4/21/04(handout), 10/22/04
(handout), 4/18/07 (handout) , 4/16/08 (handout); C. Freeman 10/16/02
(handout), 10/22/03 (handout), 4/21/04(handout) , 10/22/04 (handout),
4/20/05 (handout), 4/19/06 (handout), 4/18/07 (handout)

Page 81
M/GDE
Tank Car Reliability Research

Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, J . Byrne stated that the group has finalized the record layout. The
industries IT departments current have their focus on the industry component tracking initiative
which has led to them away from this effort. Therefore a recommendation was made to have AAR
publish a CPC that states the following:

1. The system is operational and can now be used
2. Set an voluntary compliance and mandatory compliance date (by the mandatory date all data
is to be transferred into the new electronic system)

Options for mandatory implementation deadline date: J anuary 1, 2014 or J uly 1, 2014

Motion, seconded, and passed to require electronic reporting by January 1, 2014. This will require a
re-write of Appendix R. This will also require voluntary timeframe and continued use of current
Appendix R and new electronic system.

This docket is a compilation of two dockets, Study of Tank Car Operating Environment (T80.16) and
Stub Sill Inspection Program (T79.20-98) and will continue moving forward with the work of both
groups.

The following was brought forward from docket T80.16. FRA, the RSI-AAR Tank Car Safety Project
and Transport Canada are funding Phase 2B of the operating environment study, which involves two
instrumented cars collecting sufficient load environment data to update M-1001s REPOS data and to
generally support car design and maintenance planning. One car has completed its routes and its data
is under analysis. A second car has completed its loaded miles and begun its empty mileage, the last
segment of the test. An interim report on the two cars loaded mileage has been drafted. The final
report will be delivered by September 1.

The following issue has been brought forward from T79.20.There is a need to update the SS-3
program. It was noted that the work done on the U- 1 form may be of interest for this issue. With
design modifications the current stub sill designs have shifted the location of fatigue damage from
outboard of the bolsters to locations inboard of the bolsters. The current SS-3 program does not do a
good job of capturing the issues. In discussion with FRA it was determined that updating SS-3 was
preferable to sun setting the program.

At the October 2008 meeting, R. Sims agreed to be part of the TF. Currently the FRA inspectors use
the stencil date to determine if the car is due for inspection. Working group agreed to move the
redesigned SS-3 program to the executive TCC level.

At the J anuary 2009 meeting, J . Byrne discussed the need for tank car reliability. Objective is to store
tank car information for the life of the car. TF is reviewing ways to both maintain and provide data to
tank car owners. The goal is to have an interface with UMLER which would provide new owner the
ability to view the service history and defect history of cars.

Page 82
M/GDE

At the April 2009 meeting, J . Byrne reported on tank car operating environment activity and the stub
sill inspection program (SS-3). Mr. Byrne has worked with R. Simms on a proposed software
program that would replace the current SS-3 program and R-1 form. Software specifications were
developed in order to have a single website layout form that can be used by all car owners. The intent
of this software program is to hold the history of all tank cars which would be useful when companies
purchase tank cars. The TF is looking to gain funding from FRA. FRA has expressed an interest in
funding this project. K. Warner mentioned he did not think this would be a useful tool for car owners
with small fleets. A car owner would be able to access the data only on his cars. Matt J ohnson was
added to this TF.

At the J uly 2009 meeting, J . Byrne reported on the new database project. The database as planned
will incorporate SS-3 program and R-2 form with the possibility of also including that R-1 form.
The estimated cost for this project is $96K. The project costs include web access, web user ability,
and the design/programming. Efforts are being made to have development funded by the FRA. J .
Byrne has discussed with W. Schoonover and the FRA is interested in helping with this project but
no decision has been made or funds made available. Next step planned is to review the inspection
templates for completeness and determine which reports should be covered by this tank car database.

At the October 2009 meeting, J . Byrne reported that the FRA met with the AAR-RSI on October 13
th

and FRA will provide $96,000 towards the development of this tank car database which will
incorporate the SS-3 program, R-2 form, and R-1 form. RSI plans to review inspection templates.
The availability of the database will be announced at the next TCC meeting.

At the J anuary 2010 meeting, J . Byrne reported that the RSI members met on November 4, 2009 to
review the inspection templates. The group approved the inspection templates with the ability to
tweak them if needed in the future. K. Alexy from FRA mentioned that the funds from FRA might
be available soon. Since part of the project is outside the FRA research budget the RSI-AAR will
have to fund the development of the inspection forms.

At the April 2010 meeting, J . Byrne reported that in March 2010 FRA provided 96K in funding for
the SS-3 database. J . Byrne provided an overview of the templates that will be used. J . Byrne
provided, to those that were interested, a CD with all template examples of the database. A TF was
established during the meeting to review the templates and provide recommendations for improving
them. K. Alexy, R. J achim, C. Wyler, A. Sisto, J P Gagnon, and G. Sandheinrich were all added to
the TF.

At the J uly 2010 meeting, J . Byrne reported that R. Simms is reprogramming the database to
incorporate the SS-2, SS-3, and R1 reporting. The RSI members plans to hold a meeting with R.
Simms for user acceptance testing and discuss how the car owners can upload the electronic data they
already have into the Simms program. Task Force plans to hold a teleconference to review all
templates and report the outcome at the October TCC meeting.

At the October 2010 meeting, J . Byrne reported that the tank car inspection database will include SS-
1, SS-2, SS-3, and R1 reporting. R. Simms provided a PowerPoint presentation on the development
of the electronic submittal system. The plan is to have all programming and beta testing completed
by April 2011.

Page 83
M/GDE

R. Simms reported that this Tank Car Inspection Database (TCID) adds measurably to the stub sill
inspection program by capturing more locations on the sill especially inboard of the bolster and the
connections in and around the bolster.

The system also has the following benefits:
The system will have the ability to add data currently collected through the R-1 and R-2
process.
The system will keep track of the car owner by using UMLER equipment identification
number (EIN) and allow rights to inspection data based on tank car ownership. The plan is to
refresh the EIN numbers once a month.
The system will provide the ability to produce standard reports as is the current practice with
SS-3.
Tank car owners will be able to access their fleet on a 24/7 basis.

Anyone wanting to know more about the system please contact J ohn Byrne or Roger Simms.

At the J anuary 2011 meeting, J . Byrne reported that users of the database recently held a
teleconference to discuss the development of input and output record formats. Key discussion at this
stage will be the integration of stub sill inspection data into the new reporting system. J . Byrne and
K. Dorsey will on the criteria that will focus on communication between the railroad and car owners
on any stub sill cracks/failures. A meeting will be held in February to better define data collection
and what is considered to be a partial sill separation for reporting.

At the April 2011 meeting, J . Byrne reported on the efforts to collect stub sill inspection data and how
information will be summited into the database. One item recently addressed by the TF is in regard to
the access of inspection data. . Agreement has been reached by the TF to allow the current owner
access to the inspection data as well as those past owners for the years they owned the equipment. R.
Simms provided a presentation highlighting the Tank Car Inspection Database (TCID). Roger stated
that pertinent approved drawing fields have been added and he has replaced text fields with drop
down friendly fields. Roger added the stub sill sketch, provided by GATX, which shows the area
requiring inspection. Roger plans to add stub sill separation inspection data, add specific R-1 and R-2
fields as requested, complete conversion of existing SS-3 standard reports to the new TCID data,
create a batch input system, and complete a printable view for reports. Beta testing is scheduled to
start in J une. A user manual will be included in the planned work moving forward.

At the J uly 2011 meeting, J . Byrne stated that there are two ways to capture damage; non-accident
and accident. This information will be captured by using a one unique field. During the RSI-AAR
meeting, the day before this meeting, the group agreed on the edits to the TCID system. Roger is
concerned about the funding in place based on the edits requested by RSI and AAR. Roger will
discuss with Ken on what help he can get from AAR and then within the next month Roger will
notify RSI on what funds will be needed. Alterations, Conversations, and service history is what this
system is being designed to capture. Beta testing should start soon.

Page 84
M/GDE

At the October 2011 meeting, J . Byrne reported on the TCID (Tank Car Inspection Database). The
group continues to work on the system focusing on data quality. Roger Simms provided a progress
report on the database. He specifically reported on the following:
R-1 and R-2 reporting fields were changed slightly to meet the needs of the working group
The nomenclature was modified slightly to meet expectations, and a matrix was set up to
validate the fields in use.
Three evaluation sessions were conducted with Mary Knezevich of GE via Webex.
All companies on the Task Force have been given access to the database through an
automated invitation through the TCID software. One member didnt receive the invite due
to firewall issues but that has been fixed.
TCID has been renamed as the Tank Car Integrated Database as it integrates welds tank
inspections.
Webex sessions with the users group should start on November 4
th
.
Request for additional participants should continue to be addressed to rds@simspe.com.

K. Koch provided a presentation on the final report of the Tank Car Operating Environment TF
work.

At the J anuary 2012 meeting, J . Byrne reported on the Tank Car Integrated Database (TCID). The
tentative go live date for the current companies involved with the user group testing is February 1,
2012. The TF wants to iron out all the bugs before the input layout specification is complete. Right
now there is no information provided on this system within Appendix R of M-1002. Therefore AAR
when directed will publish a CPC authorizing industry to use the on-line TCID. Templates from this
website need to be included in appendix R of M-1002 and comments should be available via CPC.
Railway Supply Institute members will eventually feed the database their own data systems. Since
FRA funded the development of the project it is assumed that once the system goes live the
development part of the project would be complete. The industry agreed to the funding the
maintenance portion of the database going forward.

At the April 2012 meeting, J . Byrne reported on the Tank Car Integrated Database (TCID). User
testing was completed at the end of 2011. Within the next few weeks AAR will publish a CPC that
will authorize use of the online Tank Car Integrated Database.

At the J uly 2012 meeting, T. Treichel gave a summary of the progress on this project. It is expected
that a record format for batch upload to the database will be available within two weeks. At that
time, the RSI members will determine how much time will be needed to program their systems.
Once the programing is done, the use of the database will become mandatory. Sims Engineers
indicated the user manual is about 90% complete. COD

Page 85
M/GDE

At the October 2012 meeting, J . Byrne reported on the tank car integrated database. The program is
in the final stages. Inboard sill pad variation (continuous versus non-continuous) will be included.
TF is working on simplify two methods of data entry: schedule inspection versus non-scheduled
inspection. Over the third quarter the RSI members worked on the batch upload specification for
mapping purposes for those that have the information already electronically. Field by field review
has taken place and the field specification document has been made available on the website. The
RSI members are working with the IT departments to transition their information into the database.
This may take several months depending on IT department priorities within the individual
companies. Ultimately a CPC will be created by AAR to give guidance to the industry on how to use
the Tank Car Integrated Database (TCID). The database is being considered a living system and
therefore continuous improvement will occur. Old SS-2 and SS-3 data will be migrated into the new
TCID system.

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, J . Byrne stated that the group has finalized the record layout. The
industries IT departments current have their focus on the industry component tracking initiative
which has led to them away from this effort. Therefore a recommendation was made to have AAR
publish a CPC that states the following:
1. The system is operational and can now be used
2. Set an voluntary compliance and mandatory compliance date (by the mandatory date all data
is to be transferred into the new electronic system)

Options for mandatory implementation deadline date: J anuary 1, 2014 or J uly 1, 2014

Motion, seconded, and passed to require electronic reporting by January 1, 2014. This will require a
re-write of Appendix R. This will also require voluntary timeframe and continued use of current
Appendix R and new electronic system.

CURRENT TF: J . Byrne (Chr), F. Gonzalez, T. Treichel, B. Fronczak, K. Koch, R. Sims, M.
J ohnson, K. Alexy, R. J achim, C. Wyler, A. Sisto, J P Gagnon, G. Sandheinrich

TF CHARGE:

REFERENCES: J . Byrne 10/03/08

Page 86
Sub 1
Tracking the Application of Reflective Material and Constant Contact Side Bearings to Tank Cars

Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on updated table in the docket. J . Rader stated that
there is nothing in the AAR field manual requiring the input into UMLER for Long Travel Constant
Contact Side Bearings. TCC agreed to have AAR investigate if LTCCSB field can be made
mandatory.
Extension of the life of the reflectors has been requested by the TCC. The TCC asked AAR to seek
understanding from the EEC on this issue. Right now it is 10 years. The two specific items of interest
are renewal requirements and location requirements. 2015 is the date for compliance of DOT instead
of 2014 as stated from the J uly TCC meeting.

This docket was opened for tracking the efforts by car owners applying reflective material and
constant contact side bearings on tank cars. This docket is for informational purposes only.

Background on Long Travel Constant Contact Side Bearing (LTCCSB) Requirement:
On March 24, 2005 AAR published circular letter C-10068: Implementation of Addition to Field
Manual Rule 88.A.15.f(9) Long Travel Constant Contact Side Bearings. The change to Rule 88 is
shown below:
Field Manual of the Interchange Rules
Rule 88-Mechanical Requirements for Interchange
Section A. At Any Time

Present Rule 88.A.15--Special Equipment f. Tank Cars (9): Vacant

Approved Rule 88.A.15.f.(9): Must be equipped with AAR Specification M-948 approved long
travel constant contact side bearings when shopped for tank car qualification as mandated by 49
CFR 180.509 or AAR Specification M-1002 Appendix D or receiving repairs in excess of the hour
limitations in Rule 108.
The approved revision to the rule becomes effective on April 1, 2005 as was suggested in c-9971. In
accordance with Rule 1.5.b.(10) this circular letter is mandatory and must be maintained until the
next planned revision of the Field Manual in J uly.

Background on Implementation of Rule 66 Reflective Sheeting Requirement:
On Friday October 28, 2005 the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a revised Final Rule
for the Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock and lifted the previous stay of effectiveness.
The new effective date of November 28, 2005 was also announced in the Federal Register. In
response to the initial notice in the Federal Register, the AAR Arbitration and Rules Committee and
as supported primarily by the AAR Car Repair Billing Committee have been issuing updates to the
industry with respect to the development of new Rule 66, Reflective Sheeting.
On November 16 2005 AAR published circular letter C-10217. This letter was issued directly in
response to the provisions contained in the October 28th release by the FRA to provide the updated
Rule revisions that have been identified.

Page 87

Sub 1
Tracking the Application of Reflective Material and Constant Contact Side Bearings to Tank Cars

At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that this docket was opened to track progress on tank
cars applying reflective material and installing constant contact side bearings. FRA requires the
reapplication of reflective material every 10 years.

At the J uly 2012 meeting, the Canadian requirement is that all tank cars be compliant by 2013, but
the DOT requirement is 2014 for car to be compliant. TC indicated they have no enforcement rights
with car owners, but only for railroads. Currently TC will tell the railroads and the railroads will
have to tell the car owners. EEC is considering doing this at rip tracks within 3 years of the due date,
similar to the airbrake test cycle. For tank cars, EEC is considering requiring renewal at re-
qualification. One issue which has to be addressed is how well the upkeep is on materials already
applied to cars. Whatever the EEC decides to do, it has to be completed before the Canadian
regulations take effect.

At the October 2012 meeting, updated table was provided in the docket.

A general statement was made by a TCC member that while researching data on the application of
reflective material and constant contact side bearings on tank cars it was noticed that other
equipment information stored in the UMLER data base is being entered incorrectly.

STATUS:
UMLER
Query Date
# Complete
Reflectorization
# Complete
LTCCSB
# Tank Cars*
4/4/2012 227895 191125 318775
6/29/12 229963 220116 319655
10/4/2012 244970 214129 312938
01/01/2013 251974 221715 330702
04/01/2013 268126 235914 343441

*Total Tank Cars in UMLER (Including all status codes: Active, In-Active, Pre-Register, and Blank)

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on updated table in the docket. J . Rader stated that
there is nothing in the AAR field manual requiring the input into UMLER for Long Travel Constant
Contact Side Bearings. TCC agreed to have AAR investigate if LTCCSB field can be made
mandatory.

Extension of the life of the reflectors has been requested by the TCC. The TCC asked AAR to seek
understanding from the EEC on this issue. Right now it is 10 years. The two specific items of
interest are renewal requirements and location requirements. 2015 is the date for compliance of DOT
instead of 2014 as stated from the J uly TCC meeting.

REFERENCES:

Page 88
Sub.1
Review Stencil Requirements for Thickness Testing

Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the proposal shown in the docket. A motion was
made, seconded, and passed to adopt proposal as written.

At the April 2010 meeting, a new docket was requested to be open to review the requalification stencils
on lined cars. In particular the thickness testing performed on the lining. Requalification stencils on
lined cars. The thickness testing performed. TF member will be: A. Willaredt, T. Phemister, J . Rader,
T. Dekoning, R. Burnett, and G. Alderson.

At the J uly 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed this new docket on the review process related to
requalification stencils on lined cars. COD

At the October 2010 meeting, J . Rader reported on the TF recommendation which was provided as a
handout during the meeting. Any concerns or comments in regard to the recommendation should be
sent via email to J im Rader at rader@Alltranstek.com

At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the TF recommendation which AAR received on
October 19, 2010. K. Dorsey will contact J . Rader to find out when the TF will finalize their
recommendation. COD

The TF recommendation was received via email October 19, 2010.

Background: The Committee opened a new docket to review the thickness test due date marking
with respect to tank cars equipped with an internal coating or internal lining. Currently, the
Association of American Railroads, Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, Section C,
Part III, M-1002, Specifications for Tank Cars, Appendix C is not clear with respect to the Due
date marking for a thickness test when the car has an internal coating or internal lining. Some
companies leave the cell blank, others insert the word None, and others insert the abbreviation
LNG RMVL. The trigger for a thickness test for such cars is at the time of coating or lining
removal.

To provide clarity, the task force recommends the following changes to Appendix C:

3.3.3.1.2 The year in which a tank thickness test is performed and the 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 mm) high. A station stencil is required. For tank cars with an
internal coating or internal lining, enter LNG RMVL, or the due date, under the column DUE to
denote the thickness test is required at the time of coating or lining removal or on the date so noted.

Page 89
Sub.1

The task force recommends adding a new abbreviation in Appendix C, paragraph 3.3.4.7, Table C2,
to read as follows:
Abbreviation Definition
LNG RMVL Lining Removal and thickness test required

NOTE: Appendix C, paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 states that any change to Appendix C would occur
during new tank car construction and/or at the time of repainting or restenciling.

At the April 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey and J . Rader discussed the proposal provided in the docket.
During the meeting the following comments were made in regard to the proposal:
1. Would it be useful to synchronize this stencil requirement with the lining inspection date?
2. Should there be an option for a due date?
3. Should the definition of LNG RMVL be modified to add thickness test required?

The comments were addressed during the meeting and a motion was made, seconded, and passed to
accept the revised wording below and move the proposal to the executive TCC for their
consideration:

The approved revised proposal is below with revised wording indicated with bold font.

3.3.3.1.2 The year in which a tank thickness test is performed and the 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 mm) high. A station stencil is required. For tank cars with an
internal coating or internal lining, enter LNG RMVL, or the due date, under the column DUE
to denote the thickness test is required at the time of coating or lining removal or on the date so
noted.

The task force recommends adding a new abbreviation in Appendix C, paragraph 3.3.4.7, Table C2,
to read as follows:
Abbreviation Definition
LNG RMVL Lining Removal and thickness test required

NOTE: Appendix C, paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 states that any change to Appendix C would occur
during new tank car construction and/or at the time of repainting or restenciling.

At the J uly 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the TF proposal which was provided in the docket.
The committee suggests that the stencil be applied at the time of next qualification. Motion made,
seconded, and passed to approve the revised proposal which shall include a statement within that the
stencil be applied at the time of next qualification. K. Dorsey will finalize the wording of the
proposal. K. Dorsey will also seek answers from the TF on the following questions from the TCC:

1. Does this apply to product purity?
2. Was the intent to include visual inspection?

Page 90
Sub.1

At the October 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that AAR is seeking additional information from
the TF. COD

At the J anuary 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that there is no TF chair at this time. AAR will
discuss with J . Rader. COD for TF work

At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the proposal provided in the docket. COD

At the J uly 2012 meeting, COD

Proposal received via email on October 2, 2012 by Jim Rader
3.3.3.1.2 Whether for corrosion protection or product purity, the year in which a tank thickness test
is performed and the 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 mm) high. A
station stencil is required. For tank cars with an internal coating or internal lining, enter LNG
RMVL under the column DUE to denote the thickness test is required at the time of coating or
lining removal.
At the October 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the proposal provided in the background.
Motion made, seconded, and passed to move this Paragraph 3.3.3.1.2 to the executive TCC for
consideration.

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the proposal shown in the docket. A motion was
made, seconded, and passed to adopt proposal as written.

CURRENT TF: A. Willaredt, J . Rader, T. Dekoning, R. Burnett, G. Alderson

TF CHARGE: Review the requalification stencils on lined cars, in particular the thickness testing

REFERENCES:

Page 91
Sub.1
Thermal Protection Research & Modeling

Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, J . Sbragia is the discussant not T. Treichel. COD material discussed
under docket T59.

At the J uly 2005 meeting, it was reported that a meeting of this task force is being scheduled as soon
as the availability of the key personnel can be worked out. J P Gagnon noted that two of the three
reports are being reviewed; however, the acceptability criteria report is still pending. T. Phemister
reported that FRA is slowly developing its own procedures for using thermography and is looking at
laser thermometers as an alternative technology to thermal imaging. J P Gagnon was requested to
confirm the availability of Transport Canadas software.

At the October 2005 meeting, it was reported that Transport Canada, FRA and the Safety Project are
contemplating coordinating to conduct fire research later this year and in 2006. Objectives include
planning the future use of the AFFTAC and IDA thermal models, determining the effects of different
types and degrees of thermal protection degradation, and developing data to allow the available fire
simulations to explore such questions accurately. The parties met October 12, 2005 to agree on a
path forward regarding the models, and to outline the test plan.

At the J anuary 2006 meeting, T. Treichel reported that Transport Canada, FRA and the Safety Project
are in the planning stages of fire tests that could begin in 2006. Objectives include determining the
effects of different types of insulation, the effect of different degrees of thermal protection
degradation, and developing validation data to allow fire impingement models to explore such
questions accurately. The parties will meet J anuary 17, 2006 to begin finalizing the test plan.

At the April 2006 meeting, it was reported that the TF is currently finishing the test plan and will
solicit bids for work once it is complete.

At the October 2006 meeting, T. Treichel reported that Transport Canada, FRA and the Safety Project
are in the planning stages of fire tests. Objectives include determining the effects of different types
and degrees of thermal protection degradation and developing data to allow the available fire
simulations to explore such questions accurately. Draft test plans are being developed for small and
full scale tank tests. These tests will begin in 2007. Supplementary lab tests are also under
consideration in a number of areas, and would begin sooner. FRA is planning liquid-flow tests of
safety valves. Of the rest, the task force has set the highest priorities on a sensitivity analysis for
Mike Birks IDA thermal model and tests of (1) the emissivity of the tank inside surface and (2) the
reflectivity of the surface of propane lading.

Page 92
Sub.1
Thermal Protection Research & Modeling (Cont)

At the J anuary 2007 meeting, it was reported that Transport Canada, FRA and the Safety Project are
in the planning stages of fire tests. Objectives include determining the effects of different types and
degrees of thermal protection degradation and developing data to allow the available fire simulations
to explore such questions accurately. Draft test plans are being developed for small and full scale
tank tests. These tests will begin in 2007. Supplementary lab tests are also under consideration in a
number of areas. FRA is planning liquid-flow tests of pressure relief valves.

R. Sobilo will replace A. Henzi as UTCs representative and J . Sbragia will take over as chairman of
this TF.

At the April 2007 meeting, it was reported that the task force is considering a statement of work for
small scale tank tests, planned to begin in 2007.

T. Treichel gave the following update at the J uly 2007 meeting; Transport Canada, FRA and the
Safety Project are in the planning stages of fire tests. Objectives include determining the effects of
different types and degrees of thermal protection degradation and developing data to allow the
available fire simulations to explore such questions accurately. The task force has developed a
statement of work for small scale tank tests and is considering options for cooperative funding
arrangements. These tests will begin in 2007. Supplementary lab tests are also under consideration
in a number of areas. FRA is planning liquid-flow tests of safety valves.

T. Treichel gave the following update at the October 2007 meeting; Transport Canada, FRA and the
Safety Project are in the planning stages of fire tests. Objectives include determining the effects of
different types and degrees of thermal protection degradation and developing data to allow the
available fire simulations to explore such questions accurately. The task force has developed a
statement of work for 2,000 gallon tank tests to fill some data gaps and help refine the plan for
subsequent full scale tests. A Request for Information has been sent to prospective contractors, and
the funding parties are considering options for cooperative funding arrangements. These tests will
not begin in 2007 as hoped, but are anticipated in the first half of 2008. FRA is planning
supplementary liquid-flow tests of safety valves.

At the J anuary 2008 meeting, J ohn Sbragia reported that the TF was considering an alternate
approach which will evaluate changes made to the AFFTAC model first. Full scale testing will then
be discussed. A new test plan is due first quarter 2008. The funding parties are still investigating
options for contracting the work. RRF and Volpe center are options as project managers.

At the April 2008 meeting, T. Treichel report that Transport Canada, FRA and the Safety Project are
in the planning stages of fire tests. Objectives include determining the effects of different types and
degrees of thermal protection degradation and developing data to allow the available fire simulations
to explore such questions accurately. The task force has changed course, now planning to begin with
lab tests of smaller scope and cost than tank tests, but offering important advances. The tank tests
would be deferred until the lab tests were done. The RSI-AAR Safety Project is developing an RFP
for tests of tank materials under heat, Transport Canada is working on an RFP for tests of tank surface
emissivity, and FRA is planning supplementary liquid-flow tests of safety valves.

Page 93
Sub.1

At the J uly 2008 meeting, Transport Canada, FRA and the Safety Project are in the planning stages of
fire tests. Objectives include determining the effects of different types and degrees of thermal
protection degradation and developing data to allow the available fire simulations to explore such
questions accurately. The task force has changed course, now planning to begin with lab tests of
smaller scope and cost than tank tests, but offering important advances. The tank tests would be
deferred until the lab tests were done. The RSI-AAR Safety Project RFP for tests of tank materials
under heat will be issued in mid-August. Transport Canada is nearly ready to issue an RFP for tests
of tank surface emissivity. FRA has drafted an RFP for supplementary liquid-flow tests of safety
valves.

At the October 2008 meeting, T. Treichel reported that Transport Canada, FRA and the Safety Project
simulations to explore such questions accurately. The task force has changed course, now planning to
begin with lab tests of smaller scope and cost than tank tests, but offering important advances. Tank
tests will be deferred until the lab tests are done. The RSI-AAR Safety Project issued an RFP for
tests of stress-strain and stress-rupture behavior of tank materials under heat, and bids are under
consideration. Transport Canada is nearly ready to issue an RFP for tests of tank surface emissivity.
FRA has drafted an RFP for supplementary liquid-flow tests of safety valves

At the J anuary 2009 meeting, T. Treichel reported that Transport Canada, FRA and the Safety Project
simulations to explore such questions accurately. The task force has changed course, now planning to
begin with lab tests of smaller scope and cost than tank tests, but offering important advances. Tank
tests will be deferred until the lab tests are done. The RSI-AAR Safety Project issued an RFP for
tests of stress-strain and stress-rupture behavior of tank materials under heat, and bids are under
consideration. Transport Canada is nearly ready to issue an RFP for tests of tank surface emissivity.
FRA has drafted an RFP for supplementary liquid-flow tests of safety valves.

At the April 2009 meeting, T. Treichel reported that Transport Canada, FRA and the Safety Project
simulations to explore such questions accurately. Tank tests will be deferred until a group of lab tests
are done. The RSI-AAR Safety Project re-issued RFPs for tests of stress-strain and stress-rupture
behavior of tank materials under heat, with a lower top temperature than the original RFP called for,
and are awaiting bids. Transport Canada has issued an RFP for tests of tank surface emissivity. FRA
has issued an RFP for liquid-flow tests of safety valves.

At the J uly 2009 meeting, T. Treichel reported that Transport Canada, FRA and the Safety Project
are in the planning stages of high-temperature performance tests. Long-term objectives include
determining the effects of different types and degrees of thermal protection degradation and
developing data to allow the available fire simulations to explore such questions accurately. Tank
tests will be deferred until a group of lab tests are done.

Page 94
Sub.1

The RSI AAR Safety Project received bids from five labs for tests of stress-strain and stress-rupture
behavior of tank materials under heat, and will select among them this week. Transport Canada has
issued an RFP for tests of tank surface emissivity. FRA has issued an RFP for liquid-flow tests of
safety valves.

At the October 2009 meeting, T. Treichel reported that Transport Canada, FRA and the Safety
Project are in the planning stages of high-temperature performance tests. Long-term objectives
include determining the effects of different types and degrees of thermal protection degradation
and developing data to allow the available fire simulations to explore such questions accurately.
Tank tests will be deferred until a group of lab tests are done. The RSI-AAR Safety Project is
funding tests of stress-strain and stress-rupture behavior of tank materials at high temperatures at
Exova (formerly Bodycote). Transport Canada is pursuing tests of tank surface emissivity. FRA is
contracting for liquid-flow tests of safety valves.

At the J anuary 2010 meeting, T. Treichel reported that Transport Canada, FRA and the Safety
Project are in the planning stages of high-temperature performance tests. Long-term objectives
include determining the effects of different types and degrees of thermal protection degradation
and developing data to allow the available fire simulations to explore such questions accurately.
Tank tests will be deferred until a group of lab tests are done. The RSI-AAR Safety Project is
Exova (formerly Bodycote). These tests are approximately 75% completed, and will be done by
the end of J anuary 2010. Transport Canada is pursuing tests of tank surface emissivity. FRA is
contracting for liquid-flow tests of safety valves.

At the April 2010 meeting, T. Treichel reported that Transport Canada, FRA and the Safety Project
conducting tests related to high-temperature tank behavior. The RSI-AAR Safety Project is
Exova (formerly Bodycote). The stress-strain tests are done, and the stress-rupture tests are well
underway and will be done in May. Transport Canada is pursuing tests of tank surface emissivity.
FRA is testing liquid flow in safety valves at the Colorado Engineering Experiment Station
(CEESI).

At the J uly 2010 meeting, T. Treichel reported that Transport Canada, FRA and the Safety Project
conducting tests related to high-temperature tank behavior. The RSI-AAR Safety Project funded tests
of stress-strain and stress-rupture behavior of tank materials at high temperatures at Exova (formerly
Bodycote). The test results have been delivered and the report presenting them is under review.
Transport Canada is pursuing tests of tank surface emissivity. FRA is testing liquid flow in safety
valves at the Colorado Engineering Experiment Station (CEESI).

At the October 2010 meeting, T. Treichel reported that Transport Canada, FRA and the Safety
Project conducting tests related to high-temperature tank behavior. The RSI-AAR Safety Project
funded tests of stress-strain and stress-rupture behavior of tank materials at high temperatures at
Exova (formerly Bodycote). The test results have been delivered and the report presenting them is
under revision. Transport Canada is pursuing tests of tank surface emissivity. FRA is testing liquid
flow in safety valves at the Colorado Engineering Experiment Station (CEESI).

Page 95
Sub.1

At the J anuary 2011 meeting, T. Treichel reported that Transport Canada, FRA and the Tank Car
Safety Project are conducting tests related to high-temperature tank behavior. The Tank Car Safety
Project funded tests of stress-strain and stress-rupture behavior of tank materials at high
temperatures at Exova (formerly Bodycote). That project is completed. Transport Canada is
pursuing tests of tank surface emissivity, and has produced interesting initial results. FRA has
tested liquid flow in safety valves at the Colorado Engineering Experiment Station (CEESI) and the
final report is under review.

At the April 2011 meeting, T. Treichel reported that Transport Canada, FRA and the Tank Car Safety
Project have conducted tests related to high-temperature tank behavior. The Tank Car Safety
Projects tests of stress-strain and stress-rupture behavior of tank materials at high temperatures will
be used to modify AFFTACs failure model Transport Canada conducted tests of tank and jacket
surface emissivity, which have produced interesting results that suggest adjustments to the
recommended default values. FRA has tested liquid flow in safety valves at the Colorado
Engineering Experiment Station (CEESI) and Dr. Runnels is reviewing the implications for
AFFTACs pressure relief logic

At the J uly 2011 meeting, T. Treichel stated that Transport Canada, FRA and the Tank Car Safety
Project have conducted tests related to the effects of high temperatures on tank behavior. The
results of three sets of tests on high-temperature steel failure, tank and jacket steel emissivity, and
liquid flow through pressure relief valves, are being incorporated into the AFFTAC fire model as
mentioned above. The next set of projects, building towards eventual full-scale destructive tests, is
being lined up for 2011 and 2012.

At the October 2011 meeting, T. Treichel stated that Transport Canada, FRA and the Tank Car
Safety Project have conducted tests related to the effects of high temperatures on tank behavior.
The results of three sets of tests on high-temperature steel failure, tank and jacket steel emissivity,
and liquid flow through pressure relief valves, are being incorporated into the AFFTAC fire model
as mentioned above. The next set of projects, building towards eventual full-scale destructive tests,
is being lined up for 2011 and 2012.

At the J anuary 2012 meeting, T. Treichel stated that Transport Canada, FRA and the Tank Car
Safety Project have conducted tests related to the effects of high temperatures on tank behavior.
The results of three sets of tests on high-temperature steel failure, tank and jacket steel emissivity,
and liquid flow through pressure relief valves, are being incorporated into the AFFTAC fire model
as mentioned above. FRA is planning fire tests of small tanks with total containment in 2012.

At the April 2012 meeting, T. Treichel reported on this docket under T59.

At the J uly 2012 meeting, T. Treichel provided an update. COD

Page 96
Sub.1

At the October 2012 meeting, covered under T59. COD

At the J anuary 2013 meeting, J . Sbragia is the discussant not T. Treichel. COD material discussed
under docket T59.

REFERENCES: T Treichel 10/26/04, 11/24/04, 12/15/04, 6/3/05, 1/04/06, 5/10/06, 5/17/06,
5/19/06X2, 5/22/06, 5/25/06, 2/22/08, 3/13/08X2; P Kinnecom 11/29/04,
11/30/04, 5/25/06, 5/30/06; T Dalrymple 11/26/04, 2/13/05; B Finn 1/14/05
(handout), 2/8/05; J Sbragia 3/15/07, 5/4/07

Page 97
Sub.1
Thermal Contribution Properties of J ackets

Recent Activity:
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.

At the April 2010 meeting, J . Sbragia requested that docket be opened to review heat input
requirements for jackets. J . Sbragia agreed to be chairman. J . Rader, J P Gagnon, J . DeLacerda, K.
Alexy, AD McKisic, J . Perez, and J . Fiore.

At the J uly 2010 meeting, J . Sbragia discussed the current lack of quantified value for heat transfer
for tanks equipped with jackets. The goal is to determine on general service cars the proper sizing of
safety relief valves on cars equipped with jackets without taking credit for insulation. Currently there
is only provision for insulated or non-insulated in AFFTAC. TF is looking to add an option for
middle of the road approach taking into account the thickness of the jacket to possibly size a valve
being approximately 1/3 of the size and would not rely on insulation to determine this requirement.
The new value would eliminate the requirement to inspect insulation for 100% compliance. TF plans
to have a proposal by the October TCC meeting.

At the October 2010 meeting, J . Sbragia stated that the goal of the TF is to determine, on a general
service car, the proper sizing of safety relief valves on cars equipped with jacket with no insulation.
Currently there are no valves today that would meet the heat input requirements. TF plans to
compare AFFTAC to Appendix A of MSRP Section C-III to determine the appropriate methodology
that should be used to properly size a safety relief valve. The TF will also review the possibility of
AFFTAC being used to size all safety valves.

At the J anuary 2011 meeting, J . Sbragia stated that the TF plans to compare AFFTAC to Appendix
A of MSRP Section C-III to determine the appropriate methodology that should be used to properly
size a safety relief valve. COD

At the April 2011 meeting, J . Sbragia reported that the TF is continues to compare AFFTAC to
Appendix A of MSRP Section C-III M-1002. The TF is working on a proposal. COD

At the J uly 2011 meeting, J . Sbragia reported that appendix A would be modified for a general
service car and would be assigned a default value. A standard u factor will be used when there is an
empty steel jacket. The TF plans to have a finalized proposal by the October TCC meeting.

At the October 2011 meeting, J . Sbragia discussed the TF proposal provided in the background.
After Mr. Sbragia explained the proposal to the tank car committee, TCC agreed to move the
proposal to the executive TCC.

Page 98
Sub.1

At the J anuary 2012 meeting, J . Sbragia discussed the TF proposal in the background. The goal is to
move away from the Appendix A of M-1002 approach which will allow for one to take credit for a
non-fire related insulation as well as identifying the shielding effect of the insulation to come up
with the correct value to size the appropriate safety valve. Analytical approach and FRA panel test
data and used these methods to come up with a usage u value. TF is unanimous in the u factor
provided in the proposal and how it was determined.

Action Taken by Tank Car Committee: Motion made, seconded, and passed on proposal as written
with AAR drafting an applicability section because it is not clear when this requirement would be
effective or which cars would be affected by this proposed wording. Two comments were made:
first, applicability would be dependent upon flow capacity. Second, if the current flow capacity
rating is later changed from the certificate then what. AAR will publish a CPC.

Provided to AAR via email on 10/4/2011

Appendix A proposal

*** PLEASE NOTE in each equation mentioned in this proposal the J value is added***

8.1.1 Conventional Units
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 =7.2 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

648.88C:
F =
]80(649-t)
391,800

Page 99
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 =146.9 kJ /h-m
2
-C
least 648.88 C as stated by the manufacturer, or for approved thermal
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
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.

Page 100
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 7.2 Btu/hr-ft2-F (146.9 kJ /h-m
2
-C ) represents the effective
overall conductance of a steel jacketed insulation system in the degraded condition.
The U factor of 7.2 Btu/hr-ft2-F (146.9 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.

Chapter 1 proposal

1.4.3.1.1
24.
Enter the type of insulation used (e.g., fiberglass, cork, polyurethane, etc.) when the flow
rate of a pressure relief device is a function of the thermal conductance of the insulation /
thermal protection system, or insulation or thermal protection is a DOT / TC specification
requirement. Otherwise, enter steel jacketed
25.
Enter the thickness of insulation used when the flow rate of a pressure relief device is a
function of the thermal conductance of the insulation / thermal protection system, or
insulation or thermal protection is a DOT / TC specification requirement. Otherwise,
indicate steel jacketed Enter the thickness of insulation in inches, or inches and
millimeters, for all insulated tanks.
26.
Enter the thermal conductivity of the insulating material when the flow rate of a pressure
relief device is a function of the thermal conductance of the insulation / thermal protection
system, or insulation or thermal protection is a DOT / TC specification requirement.
Otherwise, indicate steel jacketed. T the thermal conductivity of the insulation must be
shown in the units indicated at 60 F
(15.6 C). (Mineral wool, ceramic fiber, or other thermal protection materials are not
considered insulation.) SI equivalent units are kJ mm/hm2C.

Revised Proposal was provided to AAR via email on 12/28/11

Appendix A revised proposal

*** PLEASE NOTE: in each equation mentioned in this proposal the J value is added. Also any
addition is underlined and any deletion has a strikethrough mark. ***

8.1.1 Conventional Units

NOTE: J added to the following equations
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
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

least 1200 F as stated by the manufacturer, or for approved thermal
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

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
least 648.88 C as stated by the manufacturer, or for approved thermal
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
Sub.1

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.

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

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

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
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
Sub. 1

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
Sub. 1

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
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
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
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
M/GDE

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
M/GDE

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
M/GDE

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
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
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
Sub. 1

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
Sub. 1

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
Sub. 1

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
Sub. 1

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
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
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
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
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
M/GDE

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:


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:


"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
M/GDE

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
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
A/C

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
A/C


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
A/C
Review of Appendix A 1.2 Approvals


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
A/C

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
A/C

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
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
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
Sub.1

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
Sub.1

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
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.


CURRENT TF: T. Dekoning (Chr), D. Mullins; M. Richardson, K. Dorsey

TF CHARGE:

REFERENCES:

Page 156
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
M/GDE

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.


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.


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.)


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.


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.

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.


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
M/GDE

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
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

M/GDE
Review Appendix D for Compliance with Current 49 CFR 180 Inspection Requirements


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 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
M/GDE
Alternatives to Qualification Markings

Recent Activity:

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
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.


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
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
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 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
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 October 2010 meeting, this docket was COD pending TF work.

At the J anuary 2011 meeting, COD pending TF work.

Page 170
M/GDE

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
M/GDE

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 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
M/GDE

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
M/GDE
Review Manway Cover Design for Non-Pressure Cars

Recent Activity:

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
M/GDE

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
M/GDE

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
M/GDE

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.


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
M/GDE
Review of Hinged and Bolted Manways


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
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
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
M/GDE

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
M/GDE

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
M/GDE

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
M/GDE

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
M/GDE

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
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
M/GDE

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
M/GDE

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
M/GDE

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
M/GDE

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 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
M/GDE

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.



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.

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
M/GDE

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.



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.

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.


Page 195
M/GDE

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
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
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
Sub. 1

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 October 19-20 Subs Houston, TX
2012 J anuary 18-19 Subs J acksonville, FL

Page 199
Sub. 1

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

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
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
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
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
Sub. 1

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
Sub. 1

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 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.


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
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 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
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 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


CURRENT TF:

TF CHARGE:

REFERENCES:

2013 April TCC Sub 1 Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2013 April TCC Sub 1 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGENDA - BACKGROUND

TANK CAR COMMITTEE

You might also like