Tank failing Visual, shop condemned the tank?

[JackD342]

Pretty much the same take on this.

So, we can agree that there is a potential for confusion concerning CONDEMN from a VIP inspector's viewpoint???

Can we say misunderstanding instead of confusion? Basically, I believe PSI/PCI trains the inspector to irreversibly condemn where needed, but get the authorization signed first.
That is a long and detailed day of training, where too many CFRs are cited and bandied about in rapid succession, and it is not always easy to key in on the critical takeaways. And the hand out doesn't contain some of the info you would like to refer back to later, unless you also took really good notes on it.
I can't speak to any of the other training programs out there.

 

[lowviz]

Can we say misunderstanding instead of confusion?

Most definitely.

That is a long and detailed day of training, where too many CFRs are cited and bandied about in rapid succession, and it is not always easy to key in on the critical takeaways.

Pretty much my experience (from another agency). A motivated human being can only absorb so much in a given amount of time. I had the great fortune of challenging whatever was 'taught'. Even with that, I don't consider myself to be 100%.

I doubt that I could have done better in the same time-frame, though. Sometimes the very best is just good enough...

 

[rsingler]

So, we can agree that there is a potential for confusion concerning CONDEMN from a VIP inspector's viewpoint???

From my vantagepoint, actually no.
I think it's pretty clear that from a statutory standpoint, a VIP inspector is not authorized to physically damage a tank, either by XX'ing the DOT data or drilling a hole, etc.
Since PSI appears to be taking on that responsibility independently, they appear to cover themselves via their release. But that release is essentially a private contract between the tank owner and the shop.

What I'll be interested in finding out at my PSI training in November, is whether I'm allowed to retain their certification as a VIS inspector, while not agreeing to drill a tank that has failed a VIS. Will they take away my cert unless I agree to play policeman to the world?

 

[rjack321]

Well, that was weird. The guy asks about condemning, just like us, and DOT says you can't, as we suspected, but then quotes verbiage having to do with not "retesting" and not applying a hydro stamp, unless you're a licensed center.

That letter raises more questions than it answers, IMO.

The DOT reply (appears) to assume that the shop XXXXed out the markings as "condemnation"

This confirms what I said many posts ago. The hydrotester is authorized to condemn in the CFRs. Joe scuba Vip dude is not. But the owner can allow that.

 

[rjack321]

What I'll be interested in finding out at my PSI training in November, is whether I'm allowed to retain their certification as a VIS inspector, while not agreeing to drill a tank that has failed a VIS. Will they take away my cert unless I agree to play policeman to the world?

My prediction
They will renew their cert. Just finger wag at you about all the liability blah blah you are incurring

 

[JohnnyC]

From my vantagepoint, actually no.
I think it's pretty clear that from a statutory standpoint, a VIP inspector is not authorized to physically damage a tank, either by XX'ing the DOT data or drilling a hole, etc.
Since PSI appears to be taking on that responsibility independently, they appear to cover themselves via their release. But that release is essentially a private contract between the tank owner and the shop.

What I'll be interested in finding out at my PSI training in November, is whether I'm allowed to retain their certification as a VIS inspector, while not agreeing to drill a tank that has failed a VIS. Will they take away my cert unless I agree to play policeman to the world?

Since vis can be rather subjective, I'd be curious if they thought their waiver would hold up in court if one of their inspectors physically damaged a cylinder, and the owner of the tank took them to task over it.

 

[JackD342]

Yes, it is often subjective. But they also train DOT hydro requalifiers on how to do a visual inspection, so the same standards and processes apply. Nothing makes the hydro guy's visual inspection better or more accurate, they just have the government conferred authority and responsibility to condemn.

 

[lowviz]

I think it's pretty clear that from a statutory standpoint, a VIP inspector is not authorized to physically damage a tank, either by XX'ing the DOT data or drilling a hole, etc.

This somehow 'feels' correct to me.

I am the last person to support us becoming a nation of sheep. However, this must be balanced with one condoning (wink and a nod) truly unsafe practices to the unwary. So (and I will never put myself into this position) if someone presents me with a cylinder that clearly fails (as in FAILS) do I simply hand it back to them intact and tell them 'you gonna die if you use this?'

 

[rsingler]

Since vis can be rather subjective, I'd be curious if they thought their waiver would hold up in court if one of their inspectors physically damaged a cylinder, and the owner of the tank took them to task over it.

Since I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, let me give you the answer.

If you spent the money to take them to court and were able to prove they didn't follow their own standards re: the VIS, but nonetheless condemned your cylinder and damaged it, I would predict you'd win, given an impartial judge. Your agreeing to allow them to destroy the tank was essentially conditional upon them following their own guidelines in performing the inspection. If you prove they didn't, you win.

Having now spent $50,000 on attorneys fees and court costs, you'll get a free $300 tank!
(Maybe you could do it in Small Claims Court with Judge Judy, but you'd have 2 1/2 minutes to make your case, lol!)

 

[rsingler]

if someone presents me with a cylinder that clearly fails (as in FAILS) do I hand it back to them intact and tell them 'you gonna die if you use this?

I think I'll defer to @JackD342 on this one, but if it were me, and the tank owner started looking upset with my shop, I might be inclined to eat this one, give them a used serviceable shop tank for free in exchange, and avoid the bad mouthing that I'd get otherwise. In the long run, the bad press (even if undeserved), would cost me more.