Dometic Refer Recall - Possible Fire Hazard -Update 2/13/07

[MELM]

Click here to go directly to Updates.
Update Number 1 Nov 23, 2006
Update Number 2 Dec 5, 2006
Update Number 3 Jan 10, 2007
Update Number 4 Jan 19, 2007 - Recall Instructions - click here: Dometic Recall You need your model and serial numbers.
Update Number 5 Feb 13, 2007 - Added links to new info on the NHTSA website including the info/form for claiming reimbursement for a failure. These are at the end of the post below where all the updates are posted.

Also, edited the below Recall to include the change made prior to the Dec 5 update showing the proposed remedy.

Below is information from the NHTSA website on a recall of certain Dometic refrigerators. This recall is in its very early stages, and there is no resolution in place as of Nov 1, 2006.

From the NHTSA website:

Dometic Recall NHTSA Campaign ID 06E076000

Make / Models : Model/Build Years:
DOMETIC / NDR1062 9999
DOMETIC / RM2652 9999
DOMETIC / RM2662 9999
DOMETIC / RM2663 9999
DOMETIC / RM2852 9999
DOMETIC / RM2862 9999
DOMETIC / RM3662 9999
DOMETIC / RM3663 9999
DOMETIC / RM3862 9999
DOMETIC / RM3863 9999

Manufacturer : DOMETIC CORPORATION

NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 06E076000 Mfg's Report Date : AUG 28, 2006

Component: EQUIPMENT: RECREATIONAL VEHICLE

Potential Number Of Units Affected : 926877

Summary:
CERTAIN DOMETIC TWO-DOOR REFRIGERATORS MANUFACTURED BETWEEN APRIL 1997 AND MAY 2003: SERIAL NOS.
713XXXXX THROUGH 752XXXXX;
801XXXXX THROUGH 852XXXXX;
901XXXXX THROUGH 952XXXXX;
001XXXXX THROUGH 052XXXXX;
101XXXXX THROUGH 152XXXXX;
201XXXXX THROUGH 252XXXXX;
301XXXXX THROUGH 319XXXXX,
INSTALLED IN CERTAIN RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AS ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT AND SOLD AS AFTERMARKET EQUIPMENT. A FATIGUE CRACK MAY DEVELOP IN THE BOILER TUBE WHICH MAY RELEASE A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF PRESSURIZED COOLANT SOLUTION INTO AN AREA WHERE AN IGNITION SOURCE (GAS FLAME) IS PRESENT.

Consequence:
THE RELEASE OF COOLANT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS COULD IGNITE AND RESULT IN A FIRE.

Remedy:
THE VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS WILL NOTIFY OWNERS OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES THAT HAD THE REFRIGERATORS INSTALLED AS ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT AND DOMETIC WILL NOTIFY OWNERS OF THE AFTERMARKET REFRIGERATORS. DOMETIC WILL INSTALL A SECONDARY BURNER HOUSING FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN BETWEEN APRIL AND JUNE 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT DOMETIC AT 888-446-5157.

Notes:
CUSTOMERS MAY CONTACT THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION'S VEHICLE SAFETY HOTLINE AT 1-888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153); OR GO TO HTTP://WWW.SAFERCAR.GOV.

The following is extracted from the notice provided by Dometic to the NHTSA dated 8/26/06:

The potential defect is associated with cooling unit at the back of the refrigeration cabinet.

A fractional percentage of the potentially affected refrigerators have experienced a fatigue crack that may develop in the boiler tube in the area of the weld between the boiler tube and the heater pocket. A fatigue crack may release a sufficient amount of pressurized coolant solution into an area where an ignition source (gas flame) is present. Dometic's investigation has shown that a simulated release of cooling solution (refrigerant) in the area of the boiler, under certain conditions, could be ignited by the presence of an open flame. A boiler fatigue crack with the loss of cooling solution without ignition would result in a non-operational refrigerator that is not a safety issue. Under certain conditions, the released coolant could ignite and result in a fire. In order to have a fire, at a minimum, all of the following conditions must exist:

1. The refrigerator must be on and normally operating and gas burner must be lit;
2. 'There must be an oversized heating element in the refrigerator;
3. The boiler tube must develop a throughway fatigue crack of a
specific size;
4. There must be a release of the cooling solution at a rate which will
allow the accumulation of the cooling solution at a concentration within its range of flammability; and
5. There must be ignition source (gas flame) present.

If any of these conditions are not present, a release of the cooling solution will not result in a fire.

In April of 1997 Dometic modified the design of the affected refrigerators by increasing the wattage of the heating element from 325 watts to 354 watts. All production of the affected units from April 1997 through May of 2003 utilized the 354 watt heating element. In May of 2003, in order to improve the operating life of the refrigerators, Dometic returned to the use of the 325 watt heating element which it continues to use today. It is now believed that the use of the higher wattage heater contributed to abnormal fatigue in the boiler tube.

The products in question are all refrigerators used in the original manufacture of recreation vehicles or as replacement equipment for recreation vehicles. The total population of refrigerators potentially containing the defect is 926,877. Dometic estimates a potential maximum incident rate of 0.01% related to boiler fatigue cracks that leak and may result in a fire. There have been no incidents of injury or death related to the affected population of Dometic refrigerators.

Dometic became aware of the occurrence of fires which may have involved their products and retained an independent engineering testing laboratory to fully evaluate and investigate any potential defect in their refrigerators which might result in a fire. A number of returned units were analyzed and microscopic fatigue cracks which could release coolant into the area of the burner were identified in the boiler tube metal in the area of the weld between the heater pocket and boiler tube. Tests simulating the cracks were conducted the week of August 18, 2006 and confirmed a possible cause of fire in the refrigerators under certain conditions. These test results prompted the preparation of this notice.

Dometic continues to gather information on the potential defect and will forward additional relevant information as it becomes available.

Dometic has not yet identified a proposed remedy for the potential defect. Dometic will continue a testing program designed to identify and evaluate possible remedies. This evaluation will take place both in the United States and in Sweden. Once a remedy has been identified, Dometic will initiate or participate in a remedy campaign initiated by the original equipment manufacturers and aftermarket suppliers who have purchased, sold, and distributed these products. A list of original equipment manufacturers and aftermarket suppliers to whom Dometic has sold the potentially defective refrigerators is being prepared and will be provided to the NHTSA upon its
completion.

The following is extracted from the NHTSA response on 9/18/06:

Please provide the following additional information and be reminded of the following requirements:

Dometic must provide an estimated dealer notification date as well as an owner notification date including the day, month, and year. You are required to submit a draft owner notification letter to this office no less than five days prior to mailing it to the customers. Also, copies of all notices, bulletins, dealer notifications, and other communications that relate to this recall, including a copy of the final owner notification letter and any subsequent owner follow-up notification letter(s), are required to be submitted to this office no later than 5 days after they are originally sent (if they are sent to more than one manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or purchaser/owner).

Dometic must file a sample of the envelope which you intend to use to mail the recall notice to owners. The words "SAFETY", "RECALL", "NOTICE" in any order must be printed on the envelope in larger font than the customers name and address.

[JBarca]

timsrv wrote:

Jeeze, so demanding 😉 Okay I went and cut out a cross section & polished so you can see both sides of the crack. I couldn't get it to show in the pix, so I bent the element pocket slightly away from the boiler to open the crack. Even then this type of shot with my camera is tricky as it does not have a manual focus. Out of about 50 pix I got 2 that aren't bad. Yes, it is at the toe of the weld. As you can see it starts right where the weld was terminated and curves around kind of a "U" shape. The crack isn't as big on the inside of the boiler tube. I'm guessing it started on the exterior weld and probably took a couple years and many heating cycles to progress into the inside surface of the boiler. Of the failures I've seen, they have almost all been coaches owned by full timers that ran the refer constantly on 120v electric. The average time frame for a failure to occur (on the ones I've seen) is between 2-3 years of using in this manner. I hope these pix help explain things better. Tim

Tim

Thank you very much. This is greatly appreciated. I'll do some digging at work and post back.

What you are showing exhibits signs of thermal expansion stresses that are concentrated as the end of the weld due to the different metal thickness. Thermal expansion stresses are one of those hidden lucking stresses that can really sneak up on a manufacture. I have seen some pretty bazarr machine breaks by just heating and cooling metal of different thickness over time. It is sort of shocking the first time you see it. How can that happen?? I'm just heating and cooling it? But it can and does. Most of the time it takes years for the stresses to fester, build and then "poof" it broke.

I'm assuming Dometic has already done this, but the failed part you have was a perfect metallurgical sample. It is common in industry to take failed parts like these, send them to a metallurgical lab, send the working history of the part and let them do their thing. They have many techniques at their disposal including destructive testing to look down at the metal grain structure and they can tell you exactly what, how and why the broke the part.

Once the machinery builder knows why the part broke, they can then better redesign the system to not do it again. Dometic can do the same to solve this problem for good if they have not already done so.

To give you a similar look at this testing see this post. This failure listed was low cyclic fatigue caused by an impact loading condition. I have some thermal expansion ones we just finished that I will dig up. This post was on a TV receiver but the metallurgical techniques are similar to what would be used on this cooling unit. For those who are into this kind of stuff see here:
Metallurgical Analysis

Thanks again for helping educate us. We all now know better what to be on the look out for.

John

[Claude_B]

the failures I've seen, they have almost all been coaches owned by full timers that ran the refer constantly on 120v electric. The average time frame for a failure to occur (on the ones I've seen) is between 2-3 years of using in this manner.

So this means that the failiure occured after 750 to 1000 days of intensive and continous use. I do live up north and i do go camping for 30 to 40 days each year and more than half of it is with no electricity (running on gas). So I guess that my frig (Dometic and in the list of the recall) should fail in 25 to 35 years from now ?

I will sleep very well tonight and the nights after...

[keithbennett]

Tim:

Your comments are appreciated and well taken. It is NOT the quality but rather the Customer Service. I don't want to deal with a firm that treats their customers poorly and I have not been satisfied with my conversations with Dometic. Thank you for bringing up the point.

Remenber what I said earlier - you need to move to Denver so I can benefit from a quality dealer such as yourself! 🙂

[timsrv]

Well, to keep things fair, keep in mind that Norcold has had this same problem in the past and has also had many more recalls than Dometic. Although this was a serious problem, and still is for owners of affected units, I believe Dometic has rectified the problem on new units. For that matter, I'm sure Norcold has too. I don't believe safety to be a big issue on anything currently being sold. It basically boils down to your personal preference. Mine is grudgingly still Dometic. Tim

[keithbennett]

I have a customer that had to have 3 cooling units replaced and finally a new refer before the recall. His total cost for repairs was almost $4k. Due to severe limitations imposed by Dometic for reimbursement, it doesn't look like he'll be able to get anything. The fact they offer it sounds good on the surface, but when you read through all the limitations it's almost an empty promise. The most severe limitation is: "Time Limitation:
To be covered, the pre-recall repair must have occurred no earlier than August 28, 2005."

I am in the final stages of purchasing a new 5th wheel and have made them remove the Dometic and replace it. Some will say I am nuts but I will be sleeping at night. Then when I read about Tim's customer being out 4K - I KNOW I made the right decision!

[charlan]

timsrv wrote:
I called another Dometic parts supplier today and asked about the thermal fuse. I was told by them that these were not being made available for purchase from Dometic, but would be included in the recall kits. This is 2nd hand info & not directly from Dometic, but I consider this person to be a reliable source. Tim

Dometic rep droped by repair shop (autorized Dometic Dealer) also said thermal fuse would be included.

[timsrv]

Brad97 wrote:
They will even reimburse owners that have had to repair their units before this recall, but about a failure that occurs afterwards. It looks like the rest of us are on our own after the recall is completed unless we hear something to the contrary.

What do you think?

Brad

I have a customer that had to have 3 cooling units replaced and finally a new refer before the recall. His total cost for repairs was almost $4k. Due to severe limitations imposed by Dometic for reimbursement, it doesn't look like he'll be able to get anything. The fact they offer it sounds good on the surface, but when you read through all the limitations it's almost an empty promise. The most severe limitation is: "Time Limitation:
To be covered, the pre-recall repair must have occurred no earlier than August 28, 2005."

Here's the complete statement:

Instructions and forms for reimbursement for repairs before the recall


As far as "after recall" failures, I'm guessing they'll handle that on a case-by-case basis. If they are stingy (and I would assume they will be), squeaky wheels usually have the most luck. I guess we will find out when the time comes. Tim

[Brad97]

Yes I have a unit that is affected.

My question is this, if in fact the failure rate is higher on these units because of a higher wattage heating element. Should Dometic also stand behind the repair of stress fractures of the cooling unit beyond the original warranty period even though the unit didn't catch fire? Lets say that the average life of the unit is 10 years before the unit would would die of old age. Now the life of these units will only last an average of five years before a failure occurs. Their fix only addresses the fire issue and not the shortened life of the units. So my concern is that Dometic reduces the fire hazard so your rig won't burn down. They will even reimburse owners that have had to repair their units before this recall, but about a failure that occurs afterwards. It looks like the rest of us are on our own after the recall is completed unless we hear something to the contrary.

What do you think?

Brad

[WilleyB]

Hi Tim, an excellent post, thank's for the photos and for all your efforts to unravel the reasons for the failures. There's certainly no doubt in my mind now the underrated heaters are definitely the problem source. The crack location in respect to the hottest part of the electrical heater element is proof enough to me. I'll also mention the element I removed from my fridge also had it's deepest discoloration around the point. It's part # is 173742-28 which is listed as the heater element for a NDR1062, although my fridge is a RM3662.

the failures I've seen, they have almost all been coaches owned by full timers that ran the refer constantly on 120v electric. The average time frame for a failure to occur (on the ones I've seen) is between 2-3 years of using in this manner.

The fact that our RV is in reality a camper van, but has spent 5 years in a busy rental service, the fridge was most likely used on propane for the greatest % of time. This might explain why after seven years it has not failed yet!(fingers crossed on this one :R)
Not that it's important, but if they're mostly interchangeable, and have the same specs I wonder why all the different part numbers.

Cheers Willis

[timsrv]

JBarca wrote:
Do you have a more in focus close up of the end of the weld on the 120 V pocket where the crack occurred? I'm looking for that exact location to see how close it is to the toe of the weld. It looks like it is exactly right at the end of it which fits one pattern of thermal expansion stresses.

Jeeze, so demanding 😉 Okay I went and cut out a cross section & polished so you can see both sides of the crack. I couldn't get it to show in the pix, so I bent the element pocket slightly away from the boiler to open the crack. Even then this type of shot with my camera is tricky as it does not have a manual focus. Out of about 50 pix I got 2 that aren't bad. Yes, it is at the toe of the weld. As you can see it starts right where the weld was terminated and curves around kind of a "U" shape. The crack isn't as big on the inside of the boiler tube. I'm guessing it started on the exterior weld and probably took a couple years and many heating cycles to progress into the inside surface of the boiler. Of the failures I've seen, they have almost all been coaches owned by full timers that ran the refer constantly on 120v electric. The average time frame for a failure to occur (on the ones I've seen) is between 2-3 years of using in this manner. I hope these pix help explain things better. Tim

[rsg33]

balvert wrote:
Has anyone actually seen an element stamped "354"?

I personally have not as I've never had to change out a defective one of that size. Mind you, this recall issue has a lot of people scrutinizing their fridges a lot closer these days.

balvert wrote:
Have any of you found any failed unit where the measured resistance of the element was near that (44 ohms) specified by Dometic?

Up until this recall, I had never associated a failed unit with a faulty element, so there was really no reason to suspect that higher wattage would cause a failure. Other than a totally incorrect element installed in the unit. Also, previously failed cooling units may have leaked in totally different regions. A very common area is behind the freezer plate and that wouldn't have been caused by the element.

[JBarca]

timsrv wrote:
I called another Dometic parts supplier today and asked about the thermal fuse. I was told by them that these were not being made available for purchase from Dometic, but would be included in the recall kits. This is 2nd hand info & not directly from Dometic, but I consider this person to be a reliable source. Tim

Tim

First off thanks for the pic's. I'm sorting them out in my mind before I post on them.

Do you have a more in focus close up of the end of the weld on the 120 V pocket where the crack occurred? I'm looking for that exact location to see how close it is to the toe of the weld. It looks like it is exactly right at the end of it which fits one pattern of thermal expansion stresses.

On the Thermal fuse. I bumped into this the other day reading the Dometic web site.

See this fridge on the recall list. RM 2852 Zoom to page 12. It lists the thermofuse with the cooling coil. Index item 100.

Also look at what is written across the bottom of each part list page.

"Only parts identified with an index are available for service replacement"


The thermofuse has no index number and is only listed in words with the cooling unit. The date of this parts list is 5/05. 2005 version. which is "assumed" to be when it was last updated. Meaning the thermofuse was around since 2005. A lot of other part's lists where updated on that same 5/05 date.

After reading a number of other spare parts lists, sometimes the thermofuse wording shows up with the cooling unit, sometimes not. Even if it shows on the wiring diagram. And the wording about not available unless index sometimes shows up sometimes not.

It looks like web updates my not all be up to date in all places.

If I'm understanding the wording correctly, the only way you can buy a thermofuse is to get one with a cooling unit.

The reasoning for not "selling" and electrical item as a replacement part it not readily apparent.

Thanks

John

[timsrv]

I called another Dometic parts supplier today and asked about the thermal fuse. I was told by them that these were not being made available for purchase from Dometic, but would be included in the recall kits. This is 2nd hand info & not directly from Dometic, but I consider this person to be a reliable source. Tim

[balvert]

J Walker wrote:
I called Dometic yesterday to get more information about the possibility of the electric heater putting out too much heat and causing the weld fracture. I made some measurements of the AC current and voltage of my heater and got 360-372 watts. The tech, Roger, said that was within the acceptable range and it was not a concern. He said that the heat from the propane burner was greater than the electric heater and it would be the one to cause a weld fracture and not the electric heater for the above electric heater output. I calculated my heater resistance to be between 41.5 and 43 ohms.

The difference is the heat of the flame is evenly distributed in the boiler tube whereas the element concentrates the heat in a very small area. And Tim's pictues above simply verifies that. Personally, if the element measures less than 44 ohms then it is getting replaced. I don't trust Dometics version of what is acceptable anymore. All you have to do is read the remedy they have in mind for "fixing" the problem.

[timsrv]

For what it's worth, out of curiosity I pulled a new element from inventory yesterday and plugged it into 120v. I found it interesting to see the hot spot of the element corresponded to same location as the broken weld. You can see from the discoloration in the pix below what I'm talking about. Tim