Are hydros really necessary?

[Hickdive]

Whilst the risk of the cylinder exploding during filling is minimal and the chances of it doing so in use is virtually nil; I concur with other posters in that it may indicate a pattern of behaviour.

Not testing cylinders may mean that they are similarly remiss in regulator and BCD maintenance. Do they maintain their boats properly either?

 

[yle]

Thanks again to everyone for responding. In response to those of you that have suggested I have an obligation to protect future customers of the shop and those working at the shop that will fill the tanks, I respectfully disagree. I did not uncover some hidden secret. Anyone using a tank or (especially!) filling a tank knows about the hydro rules. The evidence, or lack thereof, is stamped right on the shoulder of the tank. They can make their own informed decisions.

If I had witnessed someone stamping a tank with a hydro date but not actually testing the tank, then I would agree I have an obligation to report. But in this case the evidence is available to everyone. As I stated in my original post, my intent was to clarify the hydro rules and to find out how strictly they were followed in different areas of the country.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

I don't buy it. With the caliber of divers coming out of many ow courses today that can't even put a regulator on a tank themselves do you really think that they will check to see if a tank is that far out? Or the new kid just hired by the shop to fill tanks who is likely not even told about checking them? Or the bystander who is hurt when one of the employees filling a tank that does know but doesn't care explodes one? Where is your sense of right and wrong? It's the law for chrissakes that they are breaking with potentially lethal results for someone. I hope that they never blow one. But if it happens down there expect to be called when the lawsuit hits. And maybe named as a defendant for not reporting it when you knew first hand of the danger. As a professional you have an obligation to report unsafe practices that you observe. If you are a padi instructor and it's a padi shop you are in violation of standards. No wonder the industry is in trouble.

 

[TorsteinH]

FYI, in Norway the regulations demands hydro testing every two years for tanks used under water - every five years for other tanks.

 

[kwinter]

I don't buy it. With the caliber of divers coming out of many ow courses today that can't even put a regulator on a tank themselves do you really think that they will check to see if a tank is that far out? Or the new kid just hired by the shop to fill tanks who is likely not even told about checking them? Or the bystander who is hurt when one of the employees filling a tank that does know but doesn't care explodes one? Where is your sense of right and wrong? It's the law for chrissakes that they are breaking with potentially lethal results for someone. I hope that they never blow one. But if it happens down there expect to be called when the lawsuit hits. And maybe named as a defendant for not reporting it when you knew first hand of the danger. As a professional you have an obligation to report unsafe practices that you observe. If you are a padi instructor and it's a padi shop you are in violation of standards. No wonder the industry is in trouble.

As usual, Jim has completely overreacted. The unsafe act would be filling the tank, not seeing it in use or being transported. I don't disagree that this shop's callous disregard for the rules should be reported, and maybe broadcasted on the forums. But I can't imagine any shop, even one that disregards the DOT guidelines, hiring a tank monkey and not explaining the rules for checking tanks before filling them. When it comes to customers' tanks, that is money to the shop for hydros and VIPs. And bystanders shouldn't be around the fill station, but we all know that shops disregard that just like auto garages do. I still believe it is safer to do all fills in a water bath, but I have seen fewer and fewer shops doing that over the years.

 

[captain]

My understanding of the quoted section is that if you transport an out of hydro cylinder, it is supposed to be empty, and I realize none of these regs were really intended for recreational scuba divers. Here is the wikipedia page for class 2.2 hazardous materials, which is a good synopsis of the CFR section I used above: HAZMAT Class 2 Gases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It would also seem to indicate that we are all supposed to have placards whenever we have scuba tanks in our cars, and separate ones for O2. I can't recall ever seeing someone with the correct placard.

As to penalties, they are listed under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act:
Civil and Criminal
Again, I'm not saying it is a major risk violating any of this on its own, but if someone were to come after you for something else, I could see violations used to prove you acted negligently and/or recklessly, and then the DOT might decide to get some easy money out of you.

Technically this is not correct, the rules state a cylinder that still contains a material can remain in use and transported even if out of date but can not be refilled until tested. If I have a full tank that has been full since last year and it has expired in that time it can still be transported. Once it is emptied it must be tested before being refilled. Dot regulation do not apply to personally owned and transported tanks. The DOT regulations state "transported in commerce" meaning some money exchange is involved in transporting the tanks.

Think of a tank as small arms ammunition, a class c explosive. Shippers of ammunition have certain DOT rules to follow, you on the other hand can transport as much of your personal ammunition in your personal car as you want.

 

[Scared Silly]

Thanks again to everyone for responding. In response to those of you that have suggested I have an obligation to protect future customers of the shop and those working at the shop that will fill the tanks, I respectfully disagree. I did not uncover some hidden secret. Anyone using a tank or (especially!) filling a tank knows about the hydro rules. The evidence, or lack thereof, is stamped right on the shoulder of the tank. They can make their own informed decisions.

I am going to respectfully disagree with you but not for the reasons you state but because of the predicament you described in your original post. Personally, I do not want to get on board a boat only to find the cylinders out of spec and get in a pissing match with the crew. Because I will ask for different cylinders, just like I would if I get on board and find a cylinders with a 3ppm CO reading. You can imagine how that is going to go over. Especially, if other customers also start questioning their practices. As such, I would rather just skip the shop in questions and let their business practices stand for themselves.

FWIW, I have actually had a similar incident happen before, the cylinder had been hydro'd but not fully re-qualified. It was a 6351 cylinder and no evidence of a visual eddy (i.e. no VE stamped). I explain my reasoning and asked that the cylinder be removed from the boat - it was and it never appeared again whilst we were diving over the next three days.

If I had witnessed someone stamping a tank with a hydro date but not actually testing the tank, then I would agree I have an obligation to report. But in this case the evidence is available to everyone. As I stated in my original post, my intent was to clarify the hydro rules and to find out how strictly they were followed in different areas of the country.

The above is hypocritical. Both are violation of DOT/HAZMAT/OSHA rules and subject to civil penalties. So why is the later more egregious than the former?


Personally, anymore I really dislike threads like this where OP does not want to name the shop when there is an obvious error in judgement. When a shop does get named they are typically contacted by someone on the board and to let them give their side of the story. In most cases it works out well.

 

[drbill]

I wouldn't dive with that operation... even though the tank (and I) may survive, I would question their other practices and procedures (as suggested by HickDive and others). No thank you.

 

[oldschoolto]

I'll play.... Just because the shop has a twisted outlook on the laws of tank Hydro's does not say it is a un-safe shop... As you can tell by reading this thread... People have different interpretations of the rules...

I will say it's a " STUPID A$$ " thing to do... If you think Hydro testing is a waste of time and money... You need to go to a Hydro shop and look at the exploded cylinders that fail inside the pressure test chamber... :shocked2:

Spend the money....

Jim....

 

[dumpsterDiver]

I wonder if the same level of animosity would be generated toward an operation which broke other laws associated with compressed gas cylinders ... say like....





filling a tank 200 psi over the maximum pressure stamped on the tank?