What is wrong with this requalification (aka hydro)?

[knotical]

FWIW, I purposely did not link the photos as to respect the copyright. I have sent an email to the person who ran the auction to use them.

As noted there is more than one issue. As such, folks should look at all of the relevant cylinder markings.

Deleted, as requested. Not convinced your concern is valid (e.g. "fair use"), but I'm not a copyright attorney, so ...

 

[akdeepdiver]

As someone that has been involved in the compressed gas industry for quite a while, the lack of the 3AL over stamp would not be my biggest concern. Yes, it should have been applied at the last hydrotest. Yes, it should have been applied sometime between 1982 and the present. But does this lack of an identification stamp effect cylinder safety, no. What it does show me is either ignorance or laziness on the part of the hydrotester. The good thing about the 3AL over stamp is a hydrotester can apply it at any time and does not have to do it only when the cylinder comes in for a test. Frankly, about 1/3 of these aluminum SP/E cylinders that came through my facilities were lacking these overstamps. Needless to say, they were not missing them when they left my facility.

What does concern me is the lack of the VE stamp in the requalification stamp. These tanks are made of 6351-T6 aluminum alloy, and there fore are required to have an eddy current test preformed as part of the hydrotest. This is clearly spelled out in Appendix C of 49 CFR. The lack of the stamp implies that the test was not completed, therefore it is an incomplete and invalid hydrotest. Unlike the 3AL overstamp, the VE identifies a nessisary test was completed in order to detect sustain load cracking. Additionally, sustained load cracking can be aggravated and made worse by the pressures used in the hydrotest, that's is why this post hydrotest eddy current test is vital for picking up developing cracks and maintaining cylinder safety.

By allowing these cylinders to leave the facility stamped (or lack of) in this manner, not only has this facility left itself open to a huge liability risk but also possibilities of a lot of fines from PHMSA, and their unannounced inspections. A inspector can include every single cylinder wrongly marked as a separate violation and fines can add up real fast.

 

[Wookie]

But I don't get the SCBA part.

I went back and read the report. It was a 6351 SCBA cylinder that blew up. I made an erroneous assumption that a E6498 cylinder was only approved for SCBA and not SCUBA. My mistake.

 

[Scared Silly]

Most who know cylinders spotted the lack of the "VE" stamp next to the hydro stamp (RIM and date). As "spoolin" referenced:

http://www.hydro-test.com/files/RES...rrent-Final-Rule-6351-T6--Alloy-Cylinders.pdf

A cylinder made from AL6351 is required to have a visual eddy test as part of the requalification. These are the only cylinders that require such a test. What I find very disturbing is that the rule has been in place since 2007 and that a scuba shop that performs requalifications would make such a mistake by not stamping the "VE".

That said what no one noticed is that visual inspection sticker indicates that the cylinders were "eddy tested". The scuba visual inspection often includes an eddy current test for AL6351 cylinders and are so noted. This annual testing is a scuba industry standard.

Though the visual eddy was done there is still a lack of a VE stamp. If one looks at the RIN one would learn that the dive shop was a hydro tester. So it would appear the full testing was done but quite the fubar.

Next, awap and akdeepdiver also note the lack of the 3AL marking. What folks should note is that the SP6498/E6498 and the SP7042/E7042 are technically expired and become part of the 3AL standard. As Myles notes this not a safety issue just ignorance or laziness.

Had this cylinder been presented to me for a fill I would have decline it and made phone call to the shop that did the work (which as I noted in my original post I did). If the person was diving that day I would give them a cylinder to use and have them go back to the shop.

FWIW the RIN number is H104 and is stamped:

H1
40

I add this information so folks can look at them can get the ID correct.

 

[tech3324]

So who's at fault here, J & T Dive Shop? If so, shouldn't a regulatory agency be alerted so that J&T's procedures could be reviewed and future mistakes avoided?

 

[Scared Silly]

Yes, the dive/hydro shop needs to understand the process much better than they do. Not only as hydro shop but as a scuba shop. Their RIN indicates they have been performing hydros since 2012. At this point all of the relevant parties know of the issue.

FWIW if buying a cylinder made from AL6351 one really needs to look at the cylinder markings closely. I have also caught several cylinders in Florida with fake hydro stamps.

 

[Ghetto Diver]

Nothing really to contribute, but to say thanks.
I came to this section of the forum to see what VE on a hydro meant as I saw it for the first time last week while diving Tavernier. They were on Luxfer Al72's.

 

[scubadiver888]

This set has the 1 for the month being a different font from the 1 from the year. Is this normal or a little odd?

 

[tuk]

Is there somewhere a layman can get a copy of the rules and regs for tank testing? Perhaps the training guide too? I'm not planning on doing tank inspections but it would be great to know what to look for when I pick up a rented or borrowed tank. To this point, I've been trusting the shops I use. Now j have my own set and want to make sure I know more.

 

[kwinter]

Additionally, sustained load cracking can be aggravated and made worse by the pressures used in the hydrotest, that's is why this post hydrotest eddy current test is vital for picking up developing cracks and maintaining cylinder safety.

I'm pretty sure my hydro shop does the eddy test BEFORE the hydro test. It made sense to me to identify a thread problem before pumping up the cylinder to test pressure.


iPhone. iTypo. iApologize.