Nitrox Tank Labels?
- Thread starter OE2X
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
halocline
Contributor
Actually I'm kind of glad that this thread got resurrected because I have heard that the 'standard' as set by the CGA now claims that O2 cleaning is appropriate for any gas over 23% O2. I don't know if that's true or what the details are, but I did hear it from a reliable source. If it is true and if the scuba industry adopts it, it means that any regulator or tank with recreational nitrox must be O2 cleaned. That's a HUGE change in policy, and I suspect that some shops will try to foist it on customers, others will ignore it, and charters will really be in a bind trying to abide by it. Would it mean that anyone renting a nitrox tank would have to present an O2 clean regulator, or would the so-called standard only apply to the tank itself? It doesn't really make any sense.
There is no 'nitrox' clean that falls somewhere between O2 clean and just normal servicing, at least that I've ever heard of. You either remove any contaminants, use viton o-rings and O2-compatible lube or you don't, correct?
There is still major confusion about the use of recreational nitrox, with many different agencies all trying to establish some sort of standard, none of which is actual law.
There is no 'nitrox' clean that falls somewhere between O2 clean and just normal servicing, at least that I've ever heard of. You either remove any contaminants, use viton o-rings and O2-compatible lube or you don't, correct?
There is still major confusion about the use of recreational nitrox, with many different agencies all trying to establish some sort of standard, none of which is actual law.
CGA would only affect tanks. Not the scuba reg put on them at best. Just hope they don't get stupid like europe and require different valves with dedicated threads for nitrox. That would suck.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk
elan
Contributor
IIRC 23.5+ was a requirement for the cylinders to be O2 cleaned. ( I do not have the CGA here at work to check) but yeah thats the standard.. Its also printed one the green label stuck to every new tank I have seen.
I have spoken to the LDS owner that I use for filling the tanks and he said that they were not planning to enforce that and would stick to the tried 40% rule.
In any case I only use o2 compatible lube and keep most my tanks o2 clean. With no stupid stickers though.
I have spoken to the LDS owner that I use for filling the tanks and he said that they were not planning to enforce that and would stick to the tried 40% rule.
In any case I only use o2 compatible lube and keep most my tanks o2 clean. With no stupid stickers though.
halocline
Contributor
When you say 'requirement', my question is, required by whom? It's not a law, the CGA has no authority to issue regulations, correct? It's only a recommendation, granted those recommendations would surely be brought up in the event of litigation over an accident.
Why a cylinder filled with pre-blended nitrox would have any different standard than a regulator used with the same gas doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? In terms of fire safety, I mean. I suppose there could be an argument that labeling tanks for nitrox could prevent confusion among divers who are grabbing rental tanks or filling stations with a pile of tanks lined up.
elan
Contributor
I totally agree with you... A lot of crap nowdays does not make sense other than for feeding insurance companies and lawers
FROM THE RECENT PSI COURSE... The catch all is that the feds no longer regulate the issue BEYOND " Thou shall comply with established industry standards" That made CGA the governing authority. They used to require the standard 40% till they found they were on the hook instead of fed regulation for any mishaps, and suddenly the o2 clean dropped to23.5. It was originally any compressed air but gas stations would no longer be able to provide air. Also PSI position is premise that 23.5 or above is a mixed gas and such mixing could result from pp blending from an empty tank thus the tank would have a content greater than 40%. To avoid any confusion of instantanious o2% vs final o2% the 23.5 is the result. I dont remember the specifics but some where is a figure of pure O2 above say 50 psi is a hazzard. and with 50 psi of o2 topped off with air yeilds the area of 22%. The actual goal to lift the liability from the CGA was all tanks to be o2 cleaned. The gas station issue and something about somewhere in the us the o2 levels are higher than 20.9 factored in the raising of 20.9 to 23.5.
halocline
Contributor
Why wouldn't the "industry" in 'established industry standards' be the scuba industry? I still don't understand what authority the CGA has, other than it's a trade organization for compressed gas.
Further, as far as I know PSI has zero legal authority; it's a privately owned, for profit company that sells training. There is no 'rule' or even 'industry standard' that requires that anyone inspecting tanks at a dive shop to have a PSI certificate. I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to require some professional training for scuba tank inspectors, it's just that I know for a fact that MANY dive shop employees looking in tanks and slapping stickers on have no such certificate or training.
I'm not even 100% opposed to the idea that tanks using nitrox should be O2 cleaned. (Well, maybe I am...) It's just that if one accepts that as a safe practice necessity, then it follows that all regulators would likewise need cleaning. My opinion is that this would never happen because it would reduce any resort's ability to provide nitrox. Once the 'industry standard' starts cutting into sales in a big way, my suspicion is that it will be much more difficult to maintain, especially when it is apparently not necessary. There have been thousands and thousands of nitrox dives annually for several years and I believe not a single documented case of ignition in recreational nitrox.
It really does appear to come down to this: He who owns the compressor makes the rules....
Why wouldn't the "industry" in 'established industry standards' be the scuba industry? I still don't understand what authority the CGA has, other than it's a trade organization for compressed gas.
-------The cga sets the standards for the handling of compressed gasses, the dot handles the transport. the fedws just said that those agencies will deterimine the standards ass opposed being done through legislation. Got rid of " The cga says this but antiquated federal statute says something else" I dont agree with it either.
Further, as far as I know PSI has zero legal authority; it's a privately owned, for profit company that sells training. There is no 'rule' or even 'industry standard' that requires that anyone inspecting tanks at a dive shop to have a PSI certificate. I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to require some professional training for scuba tank inspectors, it's just that I know for a fact that MANY dive shop employees looking in tanks and slapping stickers on have no such certificate or training.
--------You are correct they have no authority. There is no rule saying a shop has to have a PSI inspector. They are a company that has set thier operation and inspection training strictly in favor and by the BOOKS. So much so that the feds have listed them as the only agency authorized to inspect and issue a proof of inspection of i think composite cylendars. Filling does reauire has mat training of all who fill or handle tanks.
I'm not even 100% opposed to the idea that tanks using nitrox should be O2 cleaned. (Well, maybe I am...) It's just that if one accepts that as a safe practice necessity, then it follows that all regulators would likewise need cleaning. My opinion is that this would never happen because it would reduce any resort's ability to provide nitrox. Once the 'industry standard' starts cutting into sales in a big way, my suspicion is that it will be much more difficult to maintain, especially when it is apparently not necessary. There have been thousands and thousands of nitrox dives annually for several years and I believe not a single documented case of ignition in recreational nitrox.
-------Regulators do not need the o2 cleaning for > than 23.5. because of the thing about 23.5 could be from pp blending. , no pure o2 passes through the reg for rec divng mixes. Yes it does cut into nitrox providers ability to function because of the o2 cleaning of piping systems, storage bank systems. very expensive to have done from a comercial liability standpoint. IT SUCKS. and i agree with you 100% about the nanny position being taken. My fear is that the insurance agencies will eventually be presured by the powers to require a psi grad as a conditional factor to maintain converage. And that dive ops insurance will be required to provide proof a psi or equivilant certified filler did the fill to allow tanks on boats.
It really does appear to come down to this: He who owns the compressor makes the rules....[/QUOTE]
-------I agree and i do....
-------The cga sets the standards for the handling of compressed gasses, the dot handles the transport. the fedws just said that those agencies will deterimine the standards ass opposed being done through legislation. Got rid of " The cga says this but antiquated federal statute says something else" I dont agree with it either.
Further, as far as I know PSI has zero legal authority; it's a privately owned, for profit company that sells training. There is no 'rule' or even 'industry standard' that requires that anyone inspecting tanks at a dive shop to have a PSI certificate. I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to require some professional training for scuba tank inspectors, it's just that I know for a fact that MANY dive shop employees looking in tanks and slapping stickers on have no such certificate or training.
--------You are correct they have no authority. There is no rule saying a shop has to have a PSI inspector. They are a company that has set thier operation and inspection training strictly in favor and by the BOOKS. So much so that the feds have listed them as the only agency authorized to inspect and issue a proof of inspection of i think composite cylendars. Filling does reauire has mat training of all who fill or handle tanks.
I'm not even 100% opposed to the idea that tanks using nitrox should be O2 cleaned. (Well, maybe I am...) It's just that if one accepts that as a safe practice necessity, then it follows that all regulators would likewise need cleaning. My opinion is that this would never happen because it would reduce any resort's ability to provide nitrox. Once the 'industry standard' starts cutting into sales in a big way, my suspicion is that it will be much more difficult to maintain, especially when it is apparently not necessary. There have been thousands and thousands of nitrox dives annually for several years and I believe not a single documented case of ignition in recreational nitrox.
-------Regulators do not need the o2 cleaning for > than 23.5. because of the thing about 23.5 could be from pp blending. , no pure o2 passes through the reg for rec divng mixes. Yes it does cut into nitrox providers ability to function because of the o2 cleaning of piping systems, storage bank systems. very expensive to have done from a comercial liability standpoint. IT SUCKS. and i agree with you 100% about the nanny position being taken. My fear is that the insurance agencies will eventually be presured by the powers to require a psi grad as a conditional factor to maintain converage. And that dive ops insurance will be required to provide proof a psi or equivilant certified filler did the fill to allow tanks on boats.
It really does appear to come down to this: He who owns the compressor makes the rules....[/QUOTE]
-------I agree and i do....
Similar threads
