Hydro data- steel 72 pressures and REE

[Luis H]

Luis, how much expansion did you see during the round out.

Good question, but I can’t remember the exact numbers.

In these two particular tanks there was no permanent deformation; therefore it was all elastic expansion. Being that elastic expansion is linearly proportionally to the pressure, it is save to assume that at 90% of load you will see 90% of the expansion. I am fairly sure that is what I saw; I just didn’t take note of it.

The expansion of these two tanks was 52.8cc and 55.2cc. The first one return to about 0.1cc (barely readable) and the second one return back to zero.

During the round out the first one would have read about 47.5cc and the second one about 49.7cc.

 

[Luis H]

...if I can remain anonymous I may do that, though I really, really hate to "snitch". However, this isn't a one-time occurence. Every data sheet I have gotten from him shows he has over pressurized all my tanks. He liststed my 1800 PST tanks as having service pressures of 1960, and pressurized to test pressures of 3633. According to my calculations, he should have pressuized to 3000, or 3300 maximum (assuming the 5/3 rule is correct for these tanks).

Nobody likes to be told how to do their job, so I make it a rule to try to refrain from getting too involved with preliminary questions and requests when dealing with "professionals" in any field since it always strains the relationship from the beginning. But, situations like this prove that vigilance is necessary. Once the damage is done, it is done.

Are hydo-testers required by law to provide the accurate data to the owner of the cylinders upon request, or is it just a courtesy for them if they do? When the data sheet shows 4166 as being the test pressure, does that mean that it was the actual test pressure (within the tolerances of the equipment used- seems "4166" is to the nearest 1 psi to me!)?

You can anonymously report that hydro tester to the DOT. You can go to the DOT web site and find out how to report him and you should do it. He has no business doing hydro test if he is making that magnitude of errors.

If you don’t find the web site, I can to send you a link later. I also have a list of all current DOT hazmat inspectors (the inspectors that check on hydro facilities), but the best way is to report him via their web site.

Whether a hydro facility is required to provide all its data to the paying customer is IMHO one of those items that is subject to interpretation. I am on the opinion that any test data belongs to the paying customer since it is a serviced paid by the customer. I have not found were the DOT has a requirement one way or the other. Therefore, IMO the business practice of who pays for the service owns a copy of the data takes in effect.

On the other hand it is very clear that the tank belongs to the customer (per CFR49). Only the DOT numbers belong to the DOT. A condemned tank is required to be XXX over the DOT numbers only. Any other damage to the threads or drilling the tank has to be approved by the owner (this one is clearly spelled out in CFR49).

 

[WD8CDH]

Luis, how much expansion did you see during the round out.

It's common to see very large expansion during "Round Out". Round Out isn't just stretching of the tank material, it's making the cross section Round. To carry the concept to the extreme, imagine filling a flat fire hose, making it round. A tremendous amount of expansion occurs before the canvas starts to stretch.

 

[duckbill]

It just makes it harder to report the guy when he was willing to provide the data sheet which condemns him, if he didn't have to. If they are not required to provide the customers with the correct and accurate figures, then I have no way of knowing if he really did anything wrong. I think this shows it would be to the testers advantage to either give the true numbers or refuse to give any data at all, to prevent themselves from getting into hot water. How would the customer know the tester was screwing up their tanks if he were to just say, "No. That information is for my ledgers and the DOT only. You only need my guarantee that the stamp I put on your tank means that it was tested according to the proper, legal procedures and it passed"?

Hopefully, the DOT would show up saying "This is a spot check", rather than "We got an anonymous complaint". If I'm the only one who asks for data, then it might be all too obvious who the snitch was.

 

[tgsmith]

Why do you care so much about your image for someone doing something wrong?

Talk to him about it and have him explain the procedures. If it still doesn't sound kosher, then talk to the DOT about what he told you.

Being a "snitch" and fixing what is wrong are two different things.

 

[captain]

Look at it this way. There are a lot of tanks with the plus stamps so you have to assume he is doing all of them the same way he did yours so it is not just your problem.
He also might be failing tanks that would have passed if done correctly.
Here is the current list of retesters in CA, surely you can find another one.

http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Files/Cylinder_Retest/cyl_ca.pdf

If he was a good old boy friend who did it for free than maybe your concerns would be justified as you would have gotten what you payed for but you apparently paid for a professional service but didn't get it.

 

[duckbill]

Thanks, Captain. Now this is very interesting. I remember seeing his company on the DOT list a few years back, but he is not on the current list. I even went to the DOT site and checked by his ID number just in case he moved to another city, and he isn't listed there either.

 

[bill22]

.....However, doing so will probably result in my being alienated by a couple of local dive shops who use him...

If he's damaging tanks, seems to me the local dive shops would THANK you for bringing it to their attention. Just a thought. Surprised they haven't noticed.

 

[Scared Silly]

Just a note on reading the RIN numbers - They go clockwise around:

This is inspector 1234:

1 2
4 3

not 1243.

 

[duckbill]

Thanks for the reminder. I'm reading it correctly.