New Horns and Hose & Horns on CO2 10 year refurbishments

[M11]

Is it a standard to put new Horns and Hose & Horns on CO2 10 year refurbishments or is it just an industry standard?

[f500]

We don't.

[M11]

Why is it that some companies do and others like f500 don't?

I know it is strange as it would be as cheap to buy a new CO2 due to valve as well.

[f500]

We don't fit new parts if the old ones are perfectly good.
Keeps the cost to the client down, and is honest!

[M11]

I am all for honesty as i need to sleep at night.

i was just wondering what the industry did as a whole.

i want to do what is best as i have come across jobs that have CO2's 5 years past when they should be tested and the previous company haven't and just kept weighing it and taging and moving on.

[John Dragon]

We do not use refurb kit at all, we give a discount on service exchange for a new appliance.
2kg CO2 serv. exch. for new kitemarked extinguisher goes out at £43.00 plus vat.

[M11]

Are we then saying that co2 extinguishers have a life span of 10 years.

Is it not more environmently friendly to refurb than to sell new and dispose of old one.

[RePressure]

I refurb (service exchange) at 10 years, then give the customer the choice at 20 years, always using the old horn as long as it's ok and doesn't look grubby on the freshly painted extinguisher.

Most 10 year old (and quite a few 20 year old) CO2s these days will be alloy and will get recycled in one way or another.

[The Reiver]

Hi M11.
I love innocent questions that open up huge grey areas in our industry. And you have just opened up a massive one.
This could get long and complicated when I start quoting statutes, so I will try and keep things simple.
If you follow from top to bottom (hopefully) you will see why some companies follow the practice of renewing the horn at test.

1. CO2 extinguishers and their associated parts, fall under the Directive 97/23/EC ( PED - Pressure Equipment Directive) And have category III classification.
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/pressure_equipment/ped/guidelines/guideline1-1_en.html
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/pressure_equipment/ped/guidelines/guideline2-14_en.html

2. And as such, in the UK they also fall under:
Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 568 (The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2004)
Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2001 (The Pressure Equipment Regulations 1999)
Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 128 (The Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000)

3. The above are enforcable by law.
Penalties
     26.  - (1) A person guilty of an offence under regulation 25(a) shall be liable on summary conviction -

      (a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months; or

      (b) to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale,

4. 97/23/EC uses two general terms "The Vessel" basically the cylinder and "The Assembly" basically the bits that go to make up the pressure vessel i.e. cylinder, valves, discharge lines, or anything that will be pressurised during discharge or hold pressure during containment.
QUOTE ANNEX 1: " The obligations arising from the essential requirements listed in this Annex for pressure equipment also apply to assemblies where the corresponding hazard exists".

5. The legal maximum period for pressure test of a category III pressure vessel (and this is the best bit) and / or pressure assembly is 10 years.

Because of that last requirement and because no pressure test apparatus for valves, horns and hoses has ever been purchased by any acredited UK test centre (probably because it's a throw away world too). Both valve, dip tube and discharge hose should be disgarded at time of cylinder pressure test.

The area that could be argued - but why bother as a CO2 horn costs peanuts - is that the discharge device is not fully pressurised during discharge but only handles outlet flow at a fraction of the cylinder / valve pressure and therefore should be exempt.
However, I don't think anyone would ever actually be that sad and bothered to run pressure flow tests on second hand kit against something that costs 2 quid to buy in new. The new horn will have to be CE compliant. lt will (should) have been tested at manufacture. Either way that's the manufacturers problem should there be trouble.

Personally, I use the John Dragon method and discount new kit down to PT/R level. I may make less coin but at least then I've got an extinguisher that has a BS/EN3 fire rating and is CE compliant. Which of course a PT/R (pressure test / refurb) has neither.

[M11]

Much appreciated. Thanks for the effort.

[f500]

Excellent information as usual from this forum. Thanks "The Reiver"
I'm not going to worry too much about horns while there are accredited companies performing there own "hydraulic test" complete with hand painted re-furb bodies & valves, makes you wonder.....

[The Reiver]

I'm not going to worry too much about horns while there are accredited companies performing there own "hydraulic test" complete with hand painted re-furb bodies & valves, makes you wonder.....

Ain't that the truth f500.

The horn / hose and horn issue is a judgement call and I ain't passing any. Like I said it is a grey area in the industry. We could do with some clarity from the BSI Boys.
In 5306 pt 3: 2000 the instruction to scrap the discharge device was in. In 5306 pt 3: 2003 there was no mention. However 97/23/EC has remained unchanged (in this particular aspect) since 1997.

So to answer the original question. The industry standard depends upon which standard you wish to follow

[Jason Miller]

Don't forget the cynical reason for replacing horns. Large, well-known name service companies that pay commission to the service technicians and make them hit sales targets.

Jason

[Psuedonym]

JD is quite right, the best option is to scrap at 10 year and replace with new.

Drop the cost to a PTR charge - the customer sees you've carried out a PTR on his invoice, those that can be bothered to check see a nice clean unit on the wall and you've made a few bob. You have complied with all the regs (as advised by The Reiver) and can sleep better for it.

As for changing over a horn if the unit has been tested, well good practice would assume you do change, if you fit a grubby horn on a fresh and shiny unit, the customer is going to feel a bit peeved, short changed and doubt your integrity.

[nim]

If you follow from top to bottom (hopefully) you will see why some companies follow the practice of renewing the horn at test.
....................

3. The above are enforcable by law.
Penalties
     26.  - (1) A person guilty of an offence under regulation 25(a) shall be liable on summary conviction -

      (a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months; or

      (b) to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale,

Jason.

Did you read the excellent post by "The Reiver". Some would say that the competent person should follow "best practise".

Years ago I used to recycle CO2 horns. Now I will only use a new CO2 horns on an exchange unit.

Some might be cynical and ask whether you do what you do for altruistic reasons or money. Remember. When you send a box out you are leaving the end result (a working fire extinguisher) in the lap of the Gods. Do you have liability insurance which includes "failure to perform"? (I bet women are running to their brokers now trying to find out how much that would be)

The end user could have saved themselves loads of money buying from you. Either that or when the shiny red thing doesn't work  (because it was damaged in transit, faulty when it left the factory, the end user hadn't got a clue what to do or how to put on the hose/horn) they have a very expensive door stop.