CONDEMNED/CONFISCATED- liner in steel 72

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

duckbill

Contributor
Messages
833
Reaction score
53
Location
CA
O.K.
I give this hydro guy a lot of credit for being the only one I know of who does the 10% overfill calcs for the plus rating on my steel 72s, but now I have a problem.

The story:
I have a steel 72 with a 1/2" NPT opening which has an internal lining. The tank is beautiful- clean galvanizing, no boot marks or corrosion, the liner looks beautifully solid and shiny with no discoloration at all. I took the cylinder to a LDS to have it sent in for liner removal and hydro. That was two months ago.

I called the LDS to find out what the status was on my tank, and the hydro guy returned my call. He said that he couldn't hydro the cylinder because he was unable to complete the inspection of the cylinder because of the lining. He said that he is unable to remove liners through a 1/2" NPT opening. He also said that no one can. So, he said, the tank was condemned and put in the scrap pile.

I never stated that I would relinquish ownership of the cylinder for any reason, nor did I sign any waiver.

I have reread the applicable parts of CFR 49, and cannot find where there is a legal basis for confiscation.
------------------------------------------------------

His reasoning:
He was required to "remove from service" the cylinder (which, I understand, he believes means confiscation for destruction) because it failed visual (i.e. has an liner which neither he, nor anybody, else is supposedly able to remove).
------------------------------------------------------

My reasoning:

a) The cylinder didn't "fail" visual because (as he said) a visual could not be performed.
(CFR49, Sec.180.205,(f),(2): "(2) For each cylinder with a coating or attachments that would inhibit inspection
of the cylinder, the coating or attachments must be removed before performing the visual inspection.",
and CFR49, Sec.180.205,(f),(3): "Each cylinder subject to visual inspection must be approved, rejected, or condemned according to the criteria in the applicable CGA pamphlet.") (Note: The "applicable CGA pamphlet" would be C-6, which carries a $156 price tag- give me a break! Nothing like keeping us in the dark.)

b) The cylinder remains the property of the owner as acknowledged by the wording of the regulations.
(CFR49, Sec.180.205,(i),(2),(iii): "As an alternative to the stamping or labeling as described in this paragraph (i)(2), at the direction of the owner, the requalifier may render the cylinder incapable of holding pressure.",
and CFR49, Sec.180.205,(i),(3): "No person may remove or obliterate the "CONDEMNED" marking. In addition, the requalifier must notify the cylinder owner, in writing, that the cylinder is condemned and may not be filled with hazardous material and offered for transportation in commerce where use of a specification packaging is required.")
Neither of these make any sense if the object was to confiscate the cylinder for scrapping.
--------------------------------------------------

Questions:

1) Has anyone had a liner removed from a cylinder having a 1/2" NPT opening?

2) Is there anything in CGA C-6 which would specify rejection or condemnation of a cylinder due to the presence of a liner, or is it assumed the liner would be removed before a visual could be performed?
(CFR49, Sec.180.205,(f),(1): "The visual inspection must be performed in accordance with the following CGA Pamphlets: C-6 for steel and nickel cylinders (incorporated by reference; see § 171.7 of this subchapter);...")

I don't have a copy of CGA C-6, and I see the CGA charges $156 for a copy. I cannot find any web site showing the document.

3) Am I missing something?

Thankyou in advance.
 
It's legal for a requalifier to X out the DOT numbers but not to keep the tank.
 
mike_s:
That sounds like your car mechanic saying,

"you've got a blown engine. I just towed your car out back to the junkyard. You can't have it back".

Funny you should make that analogy; The hydro guy likened cylinder ownership to vehicle ownership too. He implied that as the DMV licenses and can confiscate your car, the DOT can confiscate your tank (and I don't mean M-1 Abrams:wink: ).
(Maybe I misheard or misunderstood what he said)


In the 1960s and maybe 70s, epoxy was coated on the inside of many tanks as part of the manufacturing process. The epoxy liners worked extremely well at keeping moisture from causing corrosion on the tank walls. The problem was that sometimes a pinhole would allow enough moisture to penetrate the lining, and an undetectable pit could form in the cylinder wall. So, now liners are supposed to be removed, but I've never heard anyone say that liners couldn't be removed from 1/2"-valved cylinders- until today.
 
Why don't you file an accurate police report on the stolen tank. That should shake out the legal ramifications and cut down on the BS.
 
As said before, the guy cannot keep your tank. He can condemn it, but he has to return it to you. Any tank that is in use with a plastic liner is no longer able to be hydro'd or inspected. I have one with the plastic on the outside, but the inside is just steel, it is perfectly serviceable. I think eventually, I will have to remove the outside covering and spray it with cold galvanize, I have removed the coating from the bottom of the tank because of some minor corrosion.

Thank goodness they only did this kind of thing for a few years.
 
duckbill:
Funny you should make that analogy; The hydro guy likened cylinder ownership to vehicle ownership too. He implied that as the DMV licenses and can confiscate your car, the DOT can confiscate your tank (and I don't mean M-1 Abrams:wink: ).
(Maybe I misheard or misunderstood what he said)


In the 1960s and maybe 70s, epoxy was coated on the inside of many tanks as part of the manufacturing process. The epoxy liners worked extremely well at keeping moisture from causing corrosion on the tank walls. The problem was that sometimes a pinhole would allow enough moisture to penetrate the lining, and an undetectable pit could form in the cylinder wall. So, now liners are supposed to be removed, but I've never heard anyone say that liners couldn't be removed from 1/2"-valved cylinders- until today.

Does your hydro guy represent or work for the DOT? He would fall into the category of the mechanic, not the licencing agency.

We've tumbled out liners, its a PITA to do and takes forever. Best sucess so far has been with Global Mfg's ceramic tumbling media.

Kevin
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom