Walter Kidde tanks -- returns, hydrostatic testing

[cdiver2]

Just had lds refuse to fill 1987 63cf m4002 tank in hydro and just viped.
Also a 1987 63 cf CTC in hydro and just viped.

 

[Ontario Diver]

Just had lds refuse to fill 1987 63cf m4002 tank in hydro and just viped.
Also a 1987 63 cf CTC in hydro and just viped.

Can't understand that.... M4002 is Catalina so claiming that it is due to SLC issues is a load of bunk.

I recognize that a LDS has the right to fill what they want but both of these tanks are OK.

It is time to find another shop, methinks.

 

[cdiver2]

Can't understand that.... M4002 is Catalina so claiming that it is due to SLC issues is a load of bunk.

I recognize that a LDS has the right to fill what they want but both of these tanks are OK.

It is time to find another shop, methinks.

I am coming to the conclusion that lds are hurting so bad that they will do anything to generate business, but I think it is going to backfire on them More and more people will buy on line if forced into buying gear.

 

[FreeFloat]

I own a Walter Kidde tank and to date have had only one LDS refuse to fill it. I am very anal about this tank and will not have it hot-filled or overpressurized. It was viz'd and Eddy Current tested just a week and a half ago (it wasn't due til November, but opportunity presented itself) and the inspector said it was in fine shape. I cross my fingers that with careful handling it should remain in good shape.

 

[FredT]

What has Luxfer to do with Walter Kidde? (not 'Kiddie'). Why does anybody owe you anything? I have a 20 year old SUV. I don't expect I'll be complaining if it doesn't meet current emission requirements.

Luxfer bought the Al tank production line from Kidde when Kidde got out of the Al scuba cylinder business. Wheither they bought the "business and liabiliities" is subject to debate. AFAIK That has never been fully determined publicly by examination of the purchase contract. At any rate Luxfer AFAIK has never honored a Kidde warranty.

BTW I have a dive buddy with "several" AL tanks, to the extent I budget a couple days a year to do his vips, from both manufacturers. The only ones of his that have failed vip or hydro in the last 15 years have been his Luxfers. Those failures were due to SLC and Luxfer replaced them with "similar" tanks as the 100s were no longer available. (Bubbles coming from the shoulder is a baaad thing for a scubat tank!)

FT

 

[tndiveinstruct1]

Let me guess, the dive shop told you this?

I'd call the hydro place directly and ask them, I know of no DOT ruling that says these cylinders cannot be tested any longer. I think the dive shop doesn't want to deal with them anymore and is making the hydro shop the fall guy.

In other words, they're lying to you. This is one of the many reasons I deal with a hydro shop directly and cut the dive shop out of the loop.

Roak

You are correct that the DOT never came out and said, "Don't test 6351-T6". On the contrary, it said TO test them.

But the RSPA division of the DOT DID come out and state that 6351-T6 should be removed from consideration as a authorized construction material:

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/1998/October/Day-30/f28118.htm

"Finally, this NPRM incorporates a proposal to remove from use aluminum alloy 6351-T6 that was published in an
advance notice under Docket HM-176A and terminates that docket (RIN: 2131-AB51)."

Also, the RSPA came out in 2003 in docket 14403 and stated the following:

"No person may requalify a DOT specification or exemption
cylinder in accordance with § 180.209 of this chapter unless that person has been issued a requalifier identification
number (RIN) as provided in § 107.805(d). Each person who holds a valid RIN and performs an ET in accordance with § 180.205 must notify RSPA in writing in accordance with the
procedural requirements in § 107.805."

So every 6351-T6 cylinder that undergoes Expansion Testing (ET) must be documented and the documentation sent to RSPA.

11 people ( or is it 12 now?) have died filling 6351-T6 cylinders. Bill Gordon was severly injured in 2000 when filling a Walter Kidde tank made of 6351-T6 in 1987 that he himself had tested right before filling began. The report indicated a change in the pattern of the SLC.

Seems to be a patterm here. That filling tanks made of 6351-T6 alloy is dangerous, and should be done very carefully, if at all.

Randy

 

[cdennyb]

I'd retire the tank and forget it. Any tank which is made from the 6351 alloy should be recycled, period. Catalina and the new luxfer tanks are fine now. Sure, you can find some exceptionally taken care of old tanks that are fine but I had one of those and it was half way to it's next VIP and was well within hydro. I had it strapped to my compressor and just over 1700 psi it started leaking air at the neck! It has since been replaced, right after I cleaned my shorts!
The tank didn't explode but it did have a three inch crack at the neck, the thickest part of the tank I might add. I also took exceptional care of mine and it was only a 1982 year. I have several pictures if anyone wants to see.
db

 

[roakey]

11 people ( or is it 12 now?) have died filling 6351-T6 cylinders. Bill Gordon was severly injured in 2000 when filling a Walter Kidde tank made of 6351-T6 in 1987 that he himself had tested right before filling began.

I love it when people trot out this FUD.

We could only pray to have this low a injury or death rate in almost every endeavor in our lives: Flying in an airplane, lord help us when it comes to the death rate in automobiles and what are we up to in SCUBA diving so far in this year alone, 60ish?

Versus 11 people over 20 years.

Though it sounds scary at first, this minuscule a number is proof of how safe our cylinders are.

And please don't fall back to the tired "If it saves only one life" and/or "How would you like to fill them?" arguments -- such irrational comebacks only serve to prove that you don't have a statistical leg to stand on.

This issue has been covered dozens of time on the board already, and it always comes down to how statistically safe cylinders are versus the alarmist, "the sky is falling" crowd (inclusion of names seems to be a favorite of this approach to personalize it -- I see you got that one covered already, glad we've moved beyond Scott).

Roak

 

[Laser]

I love it when people trot out this FUD.

We could only pray to have this low a injury or death rate in almost every endeavor in our lives: Flying in an airplane, lord help us when it comes to the death rate in automobiles and what are we up to in SCUBA diving so far in this year alone, 60ish?

Versus 11 people over 20 years.

Though it sounds scary at first, this minuscule a number is proof of how safe our cylinders are.

And please don't fall back to the tired "If it saves only one life" and/or "How would you like to fill them?" arguments -- such irrational comebacks only serve to prove that you don't have a statistical leg to stand on.

This issue has been covered dozens of time on the board already, and it always comes down to how statistically safe cylinders are versus the alarmist, "the sky is falling" crowd (inclusion of names seems to be a favorite of this approach to personalize it -- I see you got that one covered already, glad we've moved beyond Scott).

Roak

In my PSI course, all the instructors ( there were several there including Bill High ) said that if anyone is afraid of the 6351 alloy, they would gladly take the cylinders off their hands

 

[roakey]

Now let's move onto the list of rules, regulations and proposals listed and see if they're applicable or only meant to impress..

But the RSPA division of the DOT DID come out and state that 6351-T6 should be removed from consideration as a authorized construction material:

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/1998/October/Day-30/f28118.htm

Yup, back in '98 they came out with a *proposal*. Like many proposals it was considered and, thankfully, cooler and more rational heads prevailed and it was rejected.

"Finally, this NPRM incorporates a proposal to remove from use aluminum alloy 6351-T6 that was published in an advance notice under Docket HM-176A and terminates that docket (RIN: 2131-AB51)."

Yup, there's that pesky word "proposal" again...

Also, the RSPA came out in 2003 in docket 14403 and stated the following:

"No person may requalify a DOT specification or exemption cylinder in accordance with § 180.209 of this chapter unless that person has been issued a requalifier identification number (RIN) as provided in § 107.805(d). Each person who holds a valid RIN and performs an ET in accordance with § 180.205 must notify RSPA in writing in accordance with the procedural requirements in § 107.805."

So every 6351-T6 cylinder that undergoes Expansion Testing (ET) must be documented and the documentation sent to RSPA.

Actually, the reference about reporting cylinder testing according to 107.805 was referring to the 1998 *proposed* changes to 107.805. The current, existing 107.805 (http://www.myregs.com/dotrspa/goto.asp?ref=CFR49_I_A_107_I_805&shopos=no) only deals with renewal of RINs and requires no reporting of cylinder testing.

And the proposal requested reporting on *every* cylinder tested, not just 6351-T6 alloy cylinders as you clearly try to imply...

The rest of that paragraph is just referring to procedures that are already in place, a common tact to "bulk up" documents to make it appear that you're doing something useful or more complex than you are...

Seems to be a patterm here.

On this we agree... The cylinder manufacturers and dive shops keep trying to get old 6351-T6 cylinders booted to increase their sales, and the DOT keeps concluding that with proper inspection and testing, they're safe.

Always follow the money on issues like this...

Roak