CONDEMNED/CONFISCATED- liner in steel 72

[james croft]

It took a long time but I have got the brownish colored liner out of a steel 72 by tumbling and using a tool that has cables on a rod that is chucked into a drill. It is inserted into the tank and the centrifical force beats the cables against the side of the tank walls. Sort of like a weedeater. Tumbled it for a very long time. However it was a steel 72 with a 3/4" valve. It can be more trouble with a smaller valve I am sure.
It is a lot of trouble for an old tank and some of the posters have questioned if it is worth the work. Duckbill is a vintage diver and the preservation and restoration of vintage dive gear is important to someone like him. I am sure someone in the process of restoring a '57 Chevy is often told that it would be easier and cheaper to get a new car. They are right, but they miss the point of why it is being done.

 

[Scared Silly]

This is what I have from my PSI Course book:

"The CGA reccommends that internally lined cylinders be viewed carefully and, whenever corrosion appears to have been developed, the liner should be removed and the significance of the corrosion assessed."

P 32 Inspecting Cylinders by Bill High 4th Edition

 

[Rick Murchison]

... It's common practice for the recertifier to simply scrap a cylinder that fails or cannot be hydroed....

Not around here it ain't. And I'd be really pissed if someone "confiscated" (stole) a perfectly good set of wind chimes (two per failed tank) from me without my permission. Even if it's scrap it's my scrap, not theirs. If they want to dispose of it they require my permission to do so.
Rick

 

[wreckedinri]

Not around here it ain't. And I'd be really pissed if someone "confiscated" (stole) a perfectly good set of wind chimes (two per failed tank) from me without my permission. Even if it's scrap it's my scrap, not theirs. If they want to dispose of it they require my permission to do so.
Rick

I completely agree.

That's why I said:

BUT, the LDS should have informed you (the customer) that the cylinder should be taken out of service. At that point the customer usually says they don't want the tank and in the scrap it goes.

I should have also added that they should . . . actually, must offer it back to the customer. I was simply trying to say that I don't think anyone is trying to rip anyone off.

. . . "tank monkey" . . .

Nice.

This Tank Monkey is only responsible for deciding if that bomb that you strap to your back or throw in the trunk of your car is safe.

Tough crowd.

Be Safe All,
Dennis

 

[oxyhacker]

CGA C6, which is the last word on visual inspection at hydro time, says regarding linings: "The interior of cylinders should be prepared for inspection by the removal of dirt, scale, or other condition as necessary to permit inspection of interior surfaces. Cylinders with internal coatings shall be examined for defects in that coating. If the coating is defective, it shall be removed."

So there is no requirement that the coating be removed if still in good condition, which you say it was. And even if it was bad, he doesn't have the authority to scrap the tank, let alone dispose of it without your permission.

So if you want to get nasty, you can ask the guy to show you where in CGA C6 or anywhere else in the official literature it says he can condemn a cylinder just because he can't figure out how to remove the lining, or that he can dispose of it when he does. Then demand he compensate you for the value of the tank and threaten to file a formal complaint with the DOT. While you're at it, ask to see the entry in his log for your tank - he may not have formally condemned the tank at all!

Only thing is, this would be, considering the degree of his offense (improperly condemning and disposing of an obsolete relic of a tank worth maybe $40 tops) massive overkill. Hydro shops have to deal with a mess of confusing regulation and most of don't see enough scuba tanks to stay current on all their finer points. So they ought to be entitled to an occasional screwup, and just be glad it was an old 72 and not a 5 year old PST. And, you say, this guy will take the time to "+" scuba tanks - that's got to be worth something! So I think I'd explain to him nicely why what he did was not nice, how it was not according to DOT regulations, and how you hope he will not do it again, and let it slide.

I know, it hurts. It wouldn't be so painful it it wasn't that it was galvanized!

 

[duckbill]

oxyhacker, do you have the year that that wording was published? It seems to be in contradiction to 49 CFR, Sec. 180.205,(f),(2): "For each cylinder with a coating or attachments that would inhibit inspection of the cylinder, the coating or attachments must be removed before performing the visual inspection." (Aug. 29, 2006, I think)

I'm not even sure my source is the most current. I just want to be sure I have the most up-to-date documentation before I decide what action, if any, to take. Thankyou for sharing that portion of CGA C-6.

James Croft pretty much summarized why the tank actually exceeds the street value for me. You just plain don't find many 1959 steel 72s in pristine condition which never had a boot stuck on it! It's the nicest one I've ever seen. I know I'm in the minority as far as those who would value such a relic, but that shouldn't change the facts concerning any mishandling or recompense due me.

I haven't heard back from anyone yet regarding my tank. I guess it's getting to be time to go knock on doors.

 

[oxyhacker]

I think the CFR pretty clearly is referring to the outside of the cylinder - internal linings are almost unheard of in HP tanks (and internal "attachments" even more so!) so it is understandable that the CFR text might not specify external. Also note that a few paragraphs earlier it says that the visual will be done according to CGA C6 or C6.1, so the more detailed directions in them would take precedent over the sketchier ones in the CFR itself.

C6 also requires under External Inspection that "All caked coatings etc shall be completely removed from the exterior surface".

Oh my copy is 1993, but the CGA just came out with a new 2007 edition which I have not yet seen. However, based on past editions, there are usually very few changes from one to the other. The CGA sells these for preposterous prices, and hydro stations are required by law to have the latest editions (and not a copy of them!), quite a racket for the CGA!

 

[PhilEllis]

Since when does some "tank monkey" self certify himself as having the ability to claim he's the DOT and can confiscate your tank.


I hope to heck you didn't pay him for his services.

Mike, I am surprised at you. The issues about confiscation and the method of failure are valid for discussion. But "tank monkey"? Give me a break.

Don't fall into the same trap that many others on scuba chat boards fall into....demeaning the work value of people that perform a job by calling them "monkey". I have said this before and I will say it again......I have seen monkeys in the zoo, monkeys on the street corner, but I have never seen a monkey filling or hydroing cylinders.

Phil Ellis

 

[garyfotodiver]

Mike, I am surprised at you. The issues about confiscation and the method of failure are valid for discussion. But "tank monkey"? Give me a break.

Don't fall into the same trap that many others on scuba chat boards fall into....demeaning the work value of people that perform a job by calling them "monkey". I have said this before and I will say it again......I have seen monkeys in the zoo, monkeys on the street corner, but I have never seen a monkey filling or hydroing cylinders.

Phil Ellis

Amen brother. Or, to put it another way, "It takes one to know one."

 

[DA Aquamaster]

One thing to consider is that most hydro test facilities do the bulk of their testing on medical O2 tanks, welding tanks and CO2 tanks for Coke and Pepsi distributors. Many of these entities would perhaps prefer a failed tank be thrown on the scrap pile rather than to mess with cost of shipping it back, picking it up, etc - but these companies would probably have a waiver on file to that effect with the hydro test facility as well.

A vintage scuba tank in excellent condition is another matter entirely. To many divers it's just an old steel 72 with an outdated and impossible to repair valve (that is potentially worth as much or more than the tank itself) but to the right buyer, such a tank could be worth a lot more than a new AL80. This would be true even if the tank did not pass a VIP due to the presence of a tank coating. Plus since it "failed" the VIP, which is done after the hydro test, it is certain the tank did pass the hydro phase of the two part certification process.

A pessimist would in fact be justified in being suspicious that the tank was actually scrapped as there is a reasonable doubt that it could have instead been sold out the back door given its rarity and potential value. At a minimum, I'd want the tank back to ensure that did not happen.

Internal coatings are a pain, and in my experience it can take a week or more of tumbing to remove them. It has also not been unknown for owners of tanks with very persistent liners that were not ammemable to removal by tumbling to chemically strip them, then steam clean and tumble them before having them VIP'd and hydro'd. It is not something a test facility or dive shop would ever even condsider doing due to liability concern, but if there are no odors or residue in the tank, they will pass inspection.

Obviously, I'd advise anyone contemplating this to be extremely careful about what they use for a stripper in terms of both toxicity and ability to be FULLY removed, clean the tank very thoroughly with a process that is both non toxic and will fully remove the stripper and to get the air tested just in case to ensure no contaminants remain before using the tank. The point is there are options and it is the tank owner's decision as to what options should be pursued, not the tank tester.

If a tank fails the hydro portion of the recertification, it is unsafe, should not be used and should have either the numbers x'd out or to render it unable to hold pressure by drilling a hole in it. On a vintage tank that is potentially collectible even if unusable, a small hole in the bottom of the tank (where any screw or other method of plugging the hole is easily spotted in a VIP) may be preferrable to the customer to having the numbers x'd out and the customer should be consulted before either action is taken.

Failing the VIP can be a little fuzzier unless the reason for failure is something like a pit that is deep enough to obviously render the tank unsafe. And even this can be "iffy". I had a Faber tank that a fairly newly minted inspector in a shop wanted to fail due to what he regarded as a "pit". He let me look at it and I pointed out that it was in fact far smaller and shallower and far less of a stress riser than the letters stamped right next to it in the bottom of the tank. In fact, he agreed it looked an awful lot like a period. Common sense prevailed and the tank passed.