Information about the Luxfer recall / exchange 6351 alloy

[reefseal]

Not worth it (looking DOT site..) Yes, I got my use out of it but just want to know if what LDS is telling me is correct.

 

[roakey]

It's complete bogus, see the link below...

http://www.luxfercylinders.com/news/releases/20030617.shtml

They're probably Luxfers, look for the first hydro date and see if there's an upward pointing arrow (looks kinda like an "A") between the month and year.

Roak

 

[reefseal]

On my tank, between mo. and year is an arrow pointing up. To the left of mo, there is that marking that looks like an A. It then must be a luxfer??

Thanks for the link. Now to confront my LDS and save face.

 

[roakey]

reefseal once bubbled...
On my tank, between mo. and year is an arrow pointing up. To the left of mo, there is that marking that looks like an A. It then must be a luxfer??

Thanks for the link. Now to confront my LDS and save face.

Yup, it's a Luxfer, the arrow should look like one of these arrows:

http://www.luxfer.com/menuimages/menu1_01_01.gif

Save face? Be prepared, there's nothing that gets a dive shop's dander up more than a lowly *customer* challenging their position on something. After all, *they're* the experts that YOU must look to for accurate information.

Roak

 

[roakey]

The E6498 exemption got permanently adopted many years ago. However, to be totally legal, a hydro tester MUST stamp them 3AL. This makes them a plain-jane 3AL cylinder, just like any other cylinder they'd be willing to fill beyond the end of this year...

Any hydro tester should be able to do this, though at this point I'd go off and find a good hydro tester on your own, since the shop's suspect (search on "hydro extinguisher" without the quotes to find out how to locate a hydro facility in your town).

The full details of the exemption can be found at:

http://hazmat.dot.gov/exemptions/E06498.pdf

The shop's claims are all part of the FUD that surrounds the 6351 alloy and SLC. A thread (ha! how punny! ) to look at would be:

http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11018&highlight=hydro+tester

Also try searching on "6351" -- this will reveal that 6351 FUD has been going on for some time.

Roak

Ps. I'd really be interested in hearing about your shop's reaction to all of this.

 

[reefseal]

Armed with this info, I'll let everyone know how they react.. In case anyone wondering who shop is, it's Aquatic Specialities in Merrimack, NH..

 

[H2OHead]

Looks like you have been misinformed. I wouldn’t run out and accuse the LDS folks of being idiots quite yet. They may just not fully understand the intent of the trade-in offer. I’m not a bottle specialist, but it looks like Luxfer has taken this opportunity to get old tanks out of your garage and have you buy new ones. It’s not a recall or safety issue as far as the way I read it, but a marketing plan that works for both of you. I actually had two 1981 Luxfers hydro’d and EAN filled last week with no problems. My LDS mentioned the trade in offer some time ago, but I completely forgot. I would have saved the $18 on hydro, $10 for O2 clean and VIP, and $8 for the fill plus obtained a $50 rebate if I’d remembered about the trade in. That’s an $86 mistake that won’t happen again. I have 6 more tanks in the same category and I’m going to send them all back and get new Luxfers instead of hydro, vip and fill.

 

[pasley]

reefseal once bubbled...
Not sure if something has been posted on this already...

My LDS just told me that after the 1st of year, they will no longer fill my old US Divers Aluminum Pro-80 (which I've had since '79). I knew that Luxfer had recall on old Luxfer Aluminum 80's but I didn't think my US Divers Alum pro-80 was made by Luxfer. Can someone confirm? DOT E6498-3000 (Date of manufacture is 5 '79)

There have been issues with the AL Alloy tanks using E6498 (not just Luxfur tanks) and others exploding. See DOT safety advisory below:

http://hazmat.dot.gov/3al_advisory.pdf

Only Catalina Co did not ever use the alloy.
The site below has one persons experience with AL Alloy tanks.
http://www.scubabomb.freeservers.com/

Here is "The List" of scuba tanks that the DOT says are most likely made from the 6351-T6 aluminum alloy:

All DOT-3AL tanks manufactured under one of the following exemptions or special permits: 6498, 7042, 8107, 8364, 8422
All composite cylinders manufactured under one of the following exemptions: 7235, 8023, 8115
All Walter Kidde DOT-3AL scuba tanks.
All Cliff Impact DOT-3AL scuba tanks made before July 1990.
All Luxfer 80.8 cu. ft. scuba tanks (S80.8) made before May 1987.
All Luxfer 72 and 100 cu. ft. scuba tanks (S72, S100) made before August 1987.
All Luxfer 80 cu. ft. scuba tanks (S80) made before January 1988.
All Luxfer 50 and 92 cu. ft. scuba tanks (S50, S92) made before April 1988.
All Luxfer 30 and 63 cu. ft scuba tanks (S30, S63) made before May 1988.
All Luxfer 40 cu. ft. scuba tanks (S40) made before June 1988.
All other scuba tanks made in the US before February 1990 (except Catalina).
All scuba tanks not made in the US.
Unless proven otherwise, all scuba tanks in the above list should be assumed as being made using the 6351-T6 alloy.

I believe that "technically" the tanks can still be filled if they pass vis and hydro and eddy current testing. But I am aware that many shops have elected, for their safety to not fill these tanks.

Personally, I would collect the $20.00 or so scrap for the tank (after drilling it so it is usless) and then buy a new one. Just not worth the risk, and you have gotten your money out of it.

 

[roakey]

pasley once bubbled...
I believe that "technically" the tanks can still be filled if they pass vis and hydro and eddy current testing. But I am aware that many shops have elected, for their safety to not fill these tanks.

If the cylinders were dangerous the DOT would have retired them with a stroke of a pen. They are not. What we ARE seeing is that the local shop monkeys ARE dangerous in that they don't know how to inspect cylinders correctly.

It takes years for SLC to reach a dangerous level; shops have at LEAST three years to catch the problem. The fact we're seeing some let go points to the fact that cylinders are slipping through the cracks not once, not twice but at least THREE times, maybe even more.

Some shops are starting to refuse to fill them out of pure ignorance or simply greed (they get to sell the customer a new cylinder).

As I’ve said elsewhere, this is a wakeup call to the "self regulating" SCUBA industry -- wake up now, or you won't be self-regulating for long...

Roak

 

[blacknet]

Hello,

Even if the lds is wrong about the technicalities they do hold the right to refuse a fill as they see fit.

Ed