Tank failing Visual, shop condemned the tank?

[lowviz]

That right there is why I believe that responsible tank owners should look for themselves inside their tanks.

That is how I got into this. What an education!

You can XXXXX them out too. It is not "illegal" under the CFRs for someone to do so. (You can drill holes in the tank or smash the threads too). But you are responsible for damaging someone else's property ...//...

That borders on doublespeak. -It isn't illegal but I'm damaging personal property?

This sounds like one of those things that the informed can manage and the uninformed have to deal with. Maybe best to keep it that way, too many laws already (IMHO).

Excellent thread, much good info.

 

[rjack321]

That is how I got into this. What an education!
That borders on doublespeak. -It isn't illegal but I'm damaging personal property?

The relevant US DOT CFRs do not prohibit anyone destroying a tank or rendering it un-usable. They ALLOW authorized requalifiers to condemn cylinders - which is done by XXXing out the markings (only)

In general state law, would control vandalism or destruction of personal property like drilling holes and smashing threads. This is not something the US DOT cares about.

 

[lowviz]

The relevant US DOT CFRs do not prohibit anyone destroying a tank or rendering it un-usable. They ALLOW authorized requalifiers to condemn cylinders - which is done by XXXing out the markings (only)

With a Sharpie or with a metal stamp???

 

[rjack321]

With a Sharpie or with a metal stamp???

hah yes the OP's sharpie business is pretty funny

They use a metal X as condemnation is a permanent change - and irrevocable.

 

[JackD342]

I do recall from my PSI/PCI course that Mark emphasized a distinction between the "X" out of the serial number and the more severe drilling of a hole or damaging of threads. He said it was illegal to render the customer's property physically incapable of holding air without permission. It was long enough ago that I am not sure if that was in the context of a discussion on VIP or on hydro - let's say it was hydro. The point was that the "X" out was okay, but the actual damage was not. Yes, if no one will fill a tank with the serial number marked out it has the same effect, but it was still a subtle but real legal distinction.

I rarely condemn cutomer tanks - vast majority have been my own shop's 6351 cylinders. And I never "X" out the cylinder until results have been discussed with the customer. No one has ever asked for their condemned tank back. I "X" it out before it goes to recycling (I get about $8 for an AL80) so that it doesn't wind up back in circulation.

 

[rjack321]

I do recall from my PSI/PCI course that Mark emphasized a distinction between the "X" out of the serial number and the more severe drilling of a hole or damaging of threads. He said it was illegal to render the customer's property physically incapable of holding air without permission. It was long enough ago that I am not sure if that was in the context of a discussion on VIP or on hydro - let's say it was hydro. The point was that the "X" out was okay, but the actual damage was not. Yes, if no one will fill a tank with the serial number marked out it has the same effect, but it was still a subtle but real legal distinction.

I had an AL14 fail visual at the hydrotester. I am PSI certified but used the wrong pit depth chart at the time (PSI actually published the erroneous chart that didn't account for 3AL2015 wall thicknesses).

They XXXX the DOT markings for me even though it didn't actually get hydroed. I didn't have to give them permission to condemn it, they are specifically authorized to visual and condemn cylinders. If I had given it to a dive shop I would have had to give the shop permission to do that.

 

[runsongas]

1st Because that is what the law requires. Your view / perspective has already failed in court. Again you are acting per your certifying agency's opinion.
2nd You also have the problem of condemning if unsure by over zelous inspectors. The customer does not forfiet the right to a second opinion when it comes to VIS. It is not the same thing as a HYDRO. Those that have wrongfully condemned tanks, have been been sued, and have had to replace them for the customer. Then again that is the position of the legal team and case revuiews used for the PSI folks. I know you consider CGA to be the most reasonable. And yet I think in the CFR's some tanks can not be VIS's by other than PSI certified inspectors because they are the only ones recognized to be in full compliance in their methods and training. At some point that will change but for now PSI is the bible when it comes to bringing together all regs and policies that exist on the subject. It is all together possible to be in compliance with DOT, CGA or a manufacturer and not be in compliance with the CFR's.

This is the first I have heard that certain tanks require a PSI inspector. You got a citation for which types and where it is in the CFR?

 

[OkByMe]

Would you flll a tank if someone wrote condemned on it ?????

Your neighbor could do that as a joke. Who is to say who wrote what and whether this is any suspicion of or indication of the cylinder being serviceable just because "they" wrote on the outside. That is why there is a lawful regulation on the books with clear and predetermined outcome.

 

[lowviz]

...regulation on the books with clear and predetermined outcome ...

Not so sure that such exists.

I'm not so sure that I trust our lawmakers to craft a "one-size-fits-all" law to answer this either.

Is it possible that 'the way it is' is as good as it can reasonably get IRL?

 

[DeepSeaExplorer]

Some of the responses in this thread are surprising...

I don’t think it’s ever acceptable to destroy someone’s tanks.

I’ve had hydros on many tanks and never heard of anyone believing they have the right to permanently damage failed tanks. I’ve also never had anyone present a written document of any kind for a hydro, and certainly not one that spells out this policy. I would never agree to that and would go elsewhere.

Flag it as failed, sure. But, the owner of that tank is well within their right to take that tank, which is their personal property, to another facility for a second opinion.