PMAA is fighting a proposed “empty wetlines” mandate in the Hazardous Materials Reauthorization bill currently under consideration in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The committee held a hearing on the bill May 14 during our Day on the Hill.  In coordination with our state associations, we are targeting certain members of the Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials subcommittee that will take up the Hazard Materials Reauthorization bill soon. PMAA members with Congressmen on the subcommittee are sending letters and making calls expressing concerns that several safety and implementation issues have not been addressed. PMAA is especially concerned that mandating a new untested gasoline transportation practice could make highway accidents involving cargo transport trucks more dangerous. Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, released today a document that outlines his goals and objectives in drafting “THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009.” The document includes a discussion of wetlines related issues but does not layout exactly what legislative language he will propose. Some of the details highlighted in the draft concerning wetlines are inaccurate and PMAA will be working to have the record corrected. PMAA marketers and association executives have been holding meetings with House members who serve on the House T&I Committee to discuss wetlines related issues.  The following is the language found in today’s discussion draft.  Wetlines   With respect to wetlines, prior to implementation of the Clean Air Act, the petroleum industry loaded cargo tanks from the top. However, following implementation of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency required that cargo tanks be equipped with vapor recovery systems. The petroleum industry chose to use bottom loading in conjunction with tank top vapor recovery as their method of compliance with the Clean Air Act. Industry chose bottom loading, in part, to prevent accidents and injuries resulting from falls off the top of the tank. Because all motor fuels must be metered for tax purposes, in implementing the new loading procedures the industry did not provide for a way to drain the product from the cargo tank piping back into the loading facility to maintain proper accounting for tax purposes. As a result, cargo tanks are currently operated with 30 to 50 gallons of gasoline in the external piping, known as wetlines. The problem: the external piping is designed to fail in an accident to protect the integrity of the cargo tank shell.   Since 1990, over 250 incidents have occurred involving wetlines. Concerns over the incidents prompted the NTSB to recommend that PHMSA prohibit the use of wetlines on all existing and new manufactured cargo tank trucks. In response, Sunoco voluntarily retrofitted its trucks to eliminate the use of wetlines for transporting hazardous material, such as fuel.   In May 2006, PHMSA published a cost-benefit analysis entitled “Hazardous Materials: Safety Requirements for External Product Piping on Cargo Tanks Transporting Flammable Liquids,” which considered the costs and benefits of requiring the installation of purging systems on new trucks, trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 2002, and all new and existing trucks. The analysis stated that the average cost for a non-welded purging system is between $1772.50 and $1,932.50 plus annual maintenance costs of between $13.42 and $16.42 per tank.   According to the analysis, at a three percent discount rate, the total benefit of installing such purging systems on new trucks was $44,040,869 compared to costs of $36,516,611; for trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 2002, $64,471,092 in benefits compared to $51,404,282 in costs. For all new and existing trucks, $80,769,478 in benefits compared to $72,771,443 in costs.   At a seven percent discount rate, the total benefit of installing such purging systems on new trucks was $25,377,985 compared to costs of $23,847,613; for trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 2002, $38,902,738 in benefits compared to $35,968,401. For all new and existing trucks, $50,945,401 in benefits compared to $53,595,422 in costs.   Following issuance of the cost-benefit analysis, PHMSA withdrew its rulemaking, stating that the benefits of installing the purging systems versus the costs essentially broke even. However, PHMSA left open the possibility of requiring the equipment to be installed on new manufactured tanks, noting that “[b]ased on the revised regulatory evaluation, we believe the benefits of a final rule prohibiting…wetlines only on newly constructed CTMVs (cargo tank motor vehicles) may slightly outweigh the costs.”

PMAA is fighting a proposed “empty wetlines” mandate in the Hazardous Materials Reauthorization bill currently under consideration in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The committee held a hearing on the bill May 14 during our Day on the Hill.

In coordination with our state associations, we are targeting certain members of the Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials subcommittee that will take up the Hazard Materials Reauthorization bill soon. PMAA members with Congressmen on the subcommittee are sending letters and making calls expressing concerns that several safety and implementation issues have not been addressed. PMAA is especially concerned that mandating a new untested gasoline transportation practice could make highway accidents involving cargo transport trucks more dangerous.

Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, released today a document that outlines his goals and objectives in drafting “THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009.” The document includes a discussion of wetlines related issues but does not layout exactly what legislative language he will propose. Some of the details highlighted in the draft concerning wetlines are inaccurate and PMAA will be working to have the record corrected. PMAA marketers and association executives have been holding meetings with House members who serve on the House T&I Committee to discuss wetlines related issues.

The following is the language found in today’s discussion draft.

Wetlines

With respect to wetlines, prior to implementation of the Clean Air Act, the petroleum industry loaded cargo tanks from the top. However, following implementation of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency required that cargo tanks be equipped with vapor recovery systems. The petroleum industry chose to use bottom loading in conjunction with tank top vapor recovery as their method of compliance with the Clean Air Act. Industry chose bottom loading, in part, to prevent accidents and injuries resulting from falls off the top of the tank. Because all motor fuels must be metered for tax purposes, in implementing the new loading procedures the industry did not provide for a way to drain the product from the cargo tank piping back into the loading facility to maintain proper accounting for tax purposes. As a result, cargo tanks are currently operated with 30 to 50 gallons of gasoline in the external piping, known as wetlines. The problem: the external piping is designed to fail in an accident to protect the integrity of the cargo tank shell.

Since 1990, over 250 incidents have occurred involving wetlines. Concerns over the incidents prompted the NTSB to recommend that PHMSA prohibit the use of wetlines on all existing and new manufactured cargo tank trucks. In response, Sunoco voluntarily retrofitted its trucks to eliminate the use of wetlines for transporting hazardous material, such as fuel.

In May 2006, PHMSA published a cost-benefit analysis entitled “Hazardous Materials: Safety Requirements for External Product Piping on Cargo Tanks Transporting Flammable Liquids,” which considered the costs and benefits of requiring the installation of purging systems on new trucks, trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 2002, and all new and existing trucks. The analysis stated that the average cost for a non-welded purging system is between $1772.50 and $1,932.50 plus annual maintenance costs of between $13.42 and $16.42 per tank.

According to the analysis, at a three percent discount rate, the total benefit of installing such purging systems on new trucks was $44,040,869 compared to costs of $36,516,611; for trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 2002, $64,471,092 in benefits compared to $51,404,282 in costs. For all new and existing trucks, $80,769,478 in benefits compared to $72,771,443 in costs.

At a seven percent discount rate, the total benefit of installing such purging systems on new trucks was $25,377,985 compared to costs of $23,847,613; for trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 2002, $38,902,738 in benefits compared to $35,968,401. For all new and existing trucks, $50,945,401 in benefits compared to $53,595,422 in costs.

Following issuance of the cost-benefit analysis, PHMSA withdrew its rulemaking, stating that the benefits of installing the purging systems versus the costs essentially broke even. However, PHMSA left open the possibility of requiring the equipment to be installed on new manufactured tanks, noting that “[b]ased on the revised regulatory evaluation, we believe the benefits of a final rule prohibiting…wetlines only on newly constructed CTMVs (cargo tank motor vehicles) may slightly outweigh the costs.”

CLICK HERE

to go to the VFDA Home Page