Plumbers NZ is New Zealand's largest online plumbing, gas and drainage resource. Plumbing exam help, plumbing news, directory and free quotes.
-
Is a standard from another country an acceptable alternative to the non mandatory part two of NZ 5261??
-
if it provides for a safe installation then why wouldn't it be?
-
my point exactly
-
just to clarify please see below.................read from the bottom up, its an email stream between the ESS and the building minister
Dear Mr Williamson,
I am yet to receive a reply to my open letter sent some weeks ago to your office, I appreciate that you are a very busy person and would like to take the opportunity to add to that open letter the following.
Please see below correspondence between ESS and my self concerning the use of a British Standard as an alternative to the NON MANITORY part two of our NZ standard. It is of note that in light of all I have been accused of and what I have told you what has happened to me, acceptance of this would leave me 100% and totally innocent of any wrong doing what so ever. Baring all this in mind - a supposedly un-attached to the Board, Government Dept won’t give me an answer to two very easy and transparent questions. Is this fair? Also of note is that the only other Certifying/Craftsman Gasfitter present at my hearing was British. Is this fair?
Do you believe that NZ tradesman are given a level playing field? I don’t believe we are. It is more a kin to a minefield, presided over by the people who plant the mines and make a business out of forcing the tradesman to run the gauntlet of their minefield.
I have a question, if it happens again, who will they try to pin it on? I had warned about all this for 6 years before the explosion, and was ignored and then made a scape goat. With such a body of evidence that I have this won’t happen again to my family.
I am warning again, this man’s legacy is still out there, covered by dodgy paperwork, practices and workmanship. It is totally incomprehensible that it appears people are prepared to gamble with this man’s incompetence and flippant attitude to safe work.
Please Mr Williamson, God forbid if this happens again and nothing has been done to investigate my warnings then those responsible will have blood on their hands, we need a public inquiry ASAP. A fair and transparent one not funded and organised by the Board or their cronies.
I have publically accused the Board of corruption and they have done nothing, what does that say to you about them? You have previously written to me stating that you have no problem with industry groups being on industry Boards, I ask you to reconsider this in light of my recent letters. Do you still have confidence in this Board?
Yours Sincerely Paul Gee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gasnsolarservices@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012 7:51 p.m.
To: 'Wal Gordon'
Subject: Letter to the editor
Letter to the editor,
If we have a level playing field with transparency where open and honest opinions are shared to allow you to carry out your work, why can’t I get an answer from ESS about the use of an alternative to the NON MANDATORY part two of the NZ standard, please see below correspondence. Would it mean that there is a connection between the Board and ESS?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gasnsolarservices@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2012 7:52 a.m.
To: 'Paul Stannard'
Subject: FW: Enquiry about use of alternative standard
Hi Paul,
It is only fair to inform you that I have passed my situation on to the ombudsman’s office, the Prime Minister, anti corruption advocates and the Shadow Attorney General and this will be followed up with a formal complaint and hopefully public inquiry, please in light of this can you please pass comment on my emails.
Thank you Paul.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gasnsolarservices@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, 9 September 2012 2:28 p.m.
To: 'Paul Stannard'
Subject: FW: Enquiry about use of alternative standard
Hi Paul,
Please can I get a ruling on this email below.
Thank you Paul Gee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gasnsolarservices@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 21 August 2012 1:25 p.m.
To: 'Paul Stannard'
Subject: RE: Enquiry about use of alternative standard
Dear Paul,
Thank you for you email I would ask that you could clarify for me a few things.
In reply to your comment,
This is unusual because the assessment of what standards are used for particular work should be done with the planning and design for that work and should have been decided upon at that time.
I did decide at the time of the install what information/standards to base installing the califont below an opening window, I decided using two reference documents as an alternative to the non mandatory part two of NZ 5261-
The British Standard that previously I sent just excerpts from, but I now attach in full.
&
The Rinnai document and the research mentioned within it.
I believe, both then and now, that these two documents reaffirm each other and ensure a safe application and site choice for the califont. I based my positioning of the califont, in relation to the opening window, in excess of recommended minimum limits of both documents, the British Standard measurement of 300mm and the Rinnai one of 500mm, placing the califont 540mm below an opening window.
The performance was also borne out by the occupier, that stated at no point in 6 years did any flue gases come back into the room, which would mean Part One of NZ 5261 was further proven to have been adhered to. By date this British Standard was and is relevant and is still in use today. So it is very much a proven and tested document, for over 12 years, by over 65 million people, in one of the biggest countries that uses gas, by a per capita measurement, in the world. This is with out any apparent ill effects in a country with similar weather and building design/style. The main difference between NZ and the UK is that Britain has a much denser, cheek by jowl, population which would emphasise any problems concerning clearances of an insufficient nature.
I have also since talked to a Dutch gas engineer, a very well thought of and very prominent in the NZ gas industry, who said there has also since some research been done in Holland that showed that the flue gases were pushed away from the building, even without the use of a fan. This was due to the aerodynamics in relation to the mass of the house and density of the fumes and any subsequent extra wind would then dilute the gases further. I note this is after the fact and only mention it in passing.
In reference to your comment-
It is unclear what status could have been attributed to the extracts headed ‘Additional provisions for gas burning appliances with rated output up to 70 kW (net)’ because they are not identified. I note that on their own they would not provide sufficient information for the design of a gas installation.
I apologise for any confusion in my sending you incomplete extracts only, and not the full document. I have now attached the document in full FYI and hope this helps. I believe the “additional provisions” are explained when you read these extracts from the British Standard in context. This document is authorised by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK and I would have thought that they were qualified to issue this document and would have done more than enough ground work and research in producing this document, I believe its application is safe and that the British Standard is a quality mark recognised around the world.
In reference to your comment-
The installation would not have been able to rely on the supplement to CSA-B149.1-05 Natural gas and propane installation code. Even though NZS 5261 refers to the 2000 version of the CSA Code, this supplement was published in January 2007.
Am I to believe that even though a document is referenced in our NZ 5261, I can’t reference it because it isn’t “published”? Why do we have documents referenced by NZ 5261 that are not “published”, which then prevents them from being used? I find this confusing because you then quote a section of NZ 5261 that states-
(a) that particular performance requirement is fully satisfied by 1 or more standards listed in Part 3 of NZS 5261; and
(b) the person complies with at least 1 of those standards.
This Canadian standard is listed within Part 3; I find this all very confusing.
Please Paul can you explain-
1. Now that you are in possession of a full copy, can I use this British Standard, the one attached? Could I use it then, in 2006, and in the future? Please could I ask for a yes or no answer.
2. If I can not use it, then please could you let me know why you feel this British Standard may not be of a sufficiently high standard and not well researched enough to be deemed safe? Can you let me know what you think are the potential short comings of its application and why?
I feel these are fair and transparent questions.
Thank you in advance for time.
Yours Sincerely Paul Gee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Stannard [mailto:Paul.Stannard@med.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 August 2012 4:00 p.m.
To: Paul & Emma Gee
Subject: RE: Enquiry about use of alternative standard
Dear Paul
I refer to your further query of 29 July 2012 about the use of standards as alternatives to NZS 5261 Gas installation.
You advised that the appliance in question was installed in 2006. This is unusual because the assessment of what standards are used for particular work should be done with the planning and design for that work and should have been decided upon at that time.
In 2006 the relevant regulations were the Gas Regulations 1993 (‘the Regulations’). I include below the text of the relevant regulation 12 which, at that time, required gas installations to meet the essential safety requirements of Part 1 of NZS 5261: 2003 Gas installation.
The regulations deemed Parts 2 and 3 of NZS 5261 to be means of compliance with the mandatory requirements in Part 1 of that standard. This provided for the flexibility you claim is lacking as it provided for the acceptability of other standards that could be demonstrated to meet Part 1 of NZS 5261.
It is Energy Safety’s view that the assessment of any alternative to Part 2 would have had to be made, and documented, before commencement of the work.
I make the following comments with regard to the documents you provided:
· It is unclear what status could have been attributed to the extracts headed ‘Additional provisions for gas burning appliances with rated output up to 70 kW (net)’ because they are not identified. I note that on their own they would not provide sufficient information for the design of a gas installation.
· The installation would not have been able to rely on the supplement to CSA-B149.1-05 Natural gas and propane installation code. Even though NZS 5261 refers to the 2000 version of the CSA Code, this supplement was published in January 2007.
· When designing an installation, the installer should use documentation or written advice from the supplier related to that particular appliance. The relevance of documentation related to the suitability of another model, let alone make of appliance, is questionable at best.
Regulation 12:
12 Safety of gas installations
(1) Every person who installs a gas installation or a part of a gas installation must install that gas installation or part in accordance with Part 1 of NZS 5261.
(2) Subclause (3) applies to the following types of installation:—
(a) the installation of a gas installation that does not contain appliance with a rated input of more than 250 MJ/h:
(b) the installation of a part of a gas installation if the gas installation as a whole does not contain any gas appliance with a rated input of more than 250 MJ/h.
(3) Every person is deemed to have complied with subclause (1), in relation to an installation to which this subclause applies, if the person has complied with Part 2 of NZS 5261.
(4) Subclause (5) applies to the following types of installation:
(a) the installation of a gas installation that contains a gas appliance with a rated input of 250 MJ/h or more:
(b) the installation of a part of a gas installation if the gas installation as a whole contains a gas appliance with a rated input of 250 MJ/h or more.
(5) Every person is deemed to have complied with subclause (1), in relation to the application of a particular performance requirement of Part 1 of NZS 5261 to an installation to which this subclause applies, if—
(a) that particular performance requirement is fully satisfied by 1 or more standards listed in Part 3 of NZS 5261; and
(b) the person complies with at least 1 of those standards.
(6) This regulation does not apply to CNG stations.
Regulation 12: substituted, on 1 June 1998, by regulation 4 of the Gas Amendment Regulations 1998 (SR 1998/78).
Subclause (1): amended, on 17 October 2002, by regulation 10 of the Gas Amendment Regulations 2002 (SR 2002/271).
Regulation 12: substituted, on 2 September 2004, by regulation 8 of the Gas Amendment Regulations 2004 (SR 2004/229).
Regards,
Paul Stannard | Technical Officer | Energy Safety
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment
PO Box 1473, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Free Phone 0508 ESS INFO (377463) | DDI +64 4 460 8565 | Fax +64 4 460 1365
Visit our website: www.energysafety.govt.nz
Subscribe to the Energy Safety Business Update for our free newsletter
From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gasnsolarservices@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, 29 July 2012 2:58 p.m.
To: Paul Stannard
Subject: RE: Enquiry about use of alternative standard
Hi Paul,
Thank you for your prompt reply and sound advice but I think I may have not explained myself properly. The job in question is an historic one; a Bosch 25e 200MJ or 55 kw installed 540mm below an opening window. Installed in 2006, so the attached 2000 British Standard would be more relevant by date. Also the occupier of the house has had no problems with the install.
I had also used the attached Rinnai documents which were given to me by an ex boss who was a Craftsman Gasfitter and member of NZ institute of Gas Engineers, I note it is for a Rinnai one of the biggest califont producers in NZ, but the design if not identical is very similar for all fan forced flued califonts (i.e. Bosch, Rinnai, Rheems and Paloma to name but four) and the performance of their flue gasses are identical, i.e. forced away from the building at 90 degrees some 3 to 4 Meters. Also NZ5261 does not differentiate between the make, it is based on just MJ ratings. These attached Rinnai documents are for units much larger in MJ rating and recessed in a box, making them nearer than surface mounted unit, which the job in question is, to a window above allowing a minimum of 500mm.
The rigidity of the clearances for a flue terminal in relation to an opening window within 5261 is undermined by the attached Canadian Standard, which is stated in NZ 5261 in part 3 as being a standard that if adhered to means you have complied, on page 121 of NZ 5261 , and is also produced in 2000. It states in 8.14.8 that (iii) 3 ft (900 mm) for inputs exceeding 100 000 Btuh (30 kW); please note that there is no upper limit for mega joule rating or whether it is fan driven, which 5261 does and allows much smaller distances for fan forced flues. This would allow a gravity type flue 900mm below an opening window with the fumes behaving like cigarette smoke drifting upwards where as the appliance in question would eject to fumes some 3 or 4 metres away perpendicular to the dwelling, where they would be diluted before potentially returning to any opening in to the building.
Also Table 16 in 5261 allows for an “active” mechanical inlet, mentioning specifically a spa blower, 500mm nearer than a “passive” open window. This is confusing because it would place the fumes directly below the occupier of the spa, with them masked by the steam, in one of the smallest rooms in the house, which is also not allowed for. So we have a situation where a very powerful fan sucking air into a building is allowed 500mm nearer than a window that is just open, with no vacuum behind it.
The attached British document is the one I would like you to pass judgment on its use, specifically clearances from opening windows for fan forced flues, which allows for 300mm, nearly half the 540mm on site. I also bring to your attention the reports mentioned in the Rinnai letter and ask you to view in light of this and that is from an Australian Gas Authority.
Also of note the clearances for table 16 were amended in May 05, specifically for clearances to opening windows, all be it for horizontal measurements.
There are other numerous references to other British Standards and would have thought if these were ok then this one would be too, British Standards are recognised around the world and as a mark of quality and safety.
This British Standard is still used by over 65 million people who live, in some areas, in much denser numbers very close together. The weather is very much the same as NZ and gas has a much larger per capita use by a far greater population of the UK. The houses are built in a western style very similar to NZ, the biggest difference being that we have much more space here in NZ.
Basically what I am asking is can I apply the 300mm clearance mentioned in the British Standard to site a 200mj califont 540mm below an opening window?
Thank you for your consideration. Yours Sincerely Paul Gee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Stannard [mailto:Paul.Stannard@med.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 3 July 2012 4:42 p.m.
To: gspservices@xtra.co.nz
Subject: Enquiry about use of alternative standard
Dear Mr Gee
Thank you for your email of 29 June 2012. You have written saying that you have an installation where the clearances do not comply with the means of compliance of NZS 5261 and you have asked us whether you can use, as an alternative, an unspecified British Standard that is over 12 years old.
I should first point out that the installation standard specified in the Gas (Safety & Measurement) Regulations 2010 is now AS/NZS 5601.1: Gas Installations: Part 1 General installations: 2010. While transitional regulations allow NZS 5261 to be used until 31 December 2012, the standard AS/NZS 5601 is the preferred option.
AS/NZS 5601 has a similar structure to NZ 5261. Section 2 of the standard contains the mandatory essential safety requirements while sections 3 onward give the means of compliance. A significant difference to 5261 is the wording of section 2.1 which states:
Where gas installations are designed to the performance requirements of this Section, rather than by using the means of compliance under Sections 3 to 6, the level of safety, convenience and efficiency of operation shall be not less than an installation carried out according to Sections 3 to 6. Such designs shall be documented and kept for 7 years.
If you install an installation that meets the recognised means of compliance then you are deemed to meet the requirements of the regulations. If you go down the essential safety path then you carry a far greater liability. The means of compliance sections should be considered as the collective wisdom of the NZ and Australian gas industries and if you install something that is not in compliance with that then you should be able to fully document why you think it achieves the same levels of safety regardless of whether the proposed solution is in a British standard.
You would have to verify whether the 2000 version of this unspecified standard is still current and is used, whether there are other aspects of this standard that might influence the particular part you wish to use, and whether this standard is applicable to the types of building construction used in New Zealand. You may also need to take manufacturer’s relevant instructions for installation of the appliance and the power flue into account.
Regards,
Paul Stannard | Technical Officer | Energy Safety
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment
PO Box 1473, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Free Phone 0508 ESS INFO (377463) | DDI +64 4 460 8565 | Fax +64 4 460 1365
Visit our website: www.energysafety.govt.nz
-
look at the dates and the time lapsed between replies....... :'( ...this is what we are up against
-
it is between "ME" and the ESS and the building minister, sorry for any confusion
-
i for one Paul would be very interested in their answer, as it relevent to my situation with my post about regulator vent clearance to a mecanical air intake, can i use the american standard that allows me to be only 900mm away as oposed to nzs5261 of 3m !
regards
-
hi guys, what about `acceptable solutions`does that not apply to gasfitting,cheers
-
i for one Paul would be very interested in their answer, as it relevent to my situation with my post about regulator vent clearance to a mecanical air intake, can i use the american standard that allows me to be only 900mm away as oposed to nzs5261 of 3m !
regards
The only problem with your case is that 2.5.4.9 is a mandatory part of the code by the use of the word "shall"
-
ah true Thunderhead :)
-
but is in the part 2 section of NZ 5261 which is labled as NON MANDITORY, you can't have it both ways mate.
Are we to wait until you apply something before you can get a clarification. It is either safe or unsafe, black and white.....unless of course you want to trip people up and f**** them over....which is just plain wrong.
It shouldn't be cloak and dagger and all secret squirrel, is it safe or not...plain and simple.
Here's one for you, the same table 16 in NZ 5261 allows for a spa blower(mechanically sucking from outside to inside) 500mm nearer than a passive open window to a flue terminal, sucking the air/fumes from outside and placing them under the nose of the spa occupier in traditionally one of the smallest rooms of the house, with the fumes masked by the steam from the spa. ::)
-
sorry badger where does it state that part 2 is a non mandatory part of the code?...i am unable to find it. cheers
But looking at the wording you a correct as it states that "Part 2 provides A means of compliance .....and not THE means of compliance so if you can prove that what you have done complies with part 1 then all should be good.
-
badger, i was told by the board you CAN use other standards.! and i believe with the new 5601 being a preformace based standard you MOST certainly can use any standard that proves what you have done works and is safe.
and to go even further, if you have done a job that works and is safe, that too proves the preformance and therefore compliant.
regards
-
Part one, contains the mandatory performance criteria for the design, which is proven by the 65 million people in the UK who have used it since 2000, and still use it.... in a population with a much higher per capita use of gas and in much more tightly packed population, with a similar house design, in a country with about 20 times the population of NZ.
Part one is the only mandatory part of the standard... the other parts are a way of complying, it actually states a few times in the NZ 5261 that these parts 2 and 3 are not the only way to do it.
Just asking for a yes or no answer....is it safe or not? its a fair question
Bowtie, this is the only thing they have on me after 3 years persecutiuon....and it is bollox
-
Bowtie, did you get it in writing mate, would love a copy if they did
-
where does it say this badger..i would like to know for my own information...cheers
-
1.1 1.1.3. 2.1 3.2 of NZ5261, think there are others....only part one is mandatory, of more like its performance, everything else is down to interpretation, but no one will comment until after you use it.....then they go you.
Apparently according to Bickers at tonight's meeting when I asked why can't we ask the auditors for advise (because the Board base their persecutions on these peoples opinions) it is because there isn't any money in it for them.....which is quite telling because they make a good living out of going after people after the fact......and the Board is here to prevent problems? and enforce safety??
-
ok i see it now 1.1.1 scope and application... part 1 is a mandatory part and part 2,3 is only a means of compliance with part 1...so your british standards should be ok as long as they comply with part 1 its as simple as that so you should be able to use other standards as a means of installiation as long as it complies with the performance critera set out in part one. and there should not be a damb thing the pgdb can do about it as long as it complies with part one.
Thinking back now i remember my tutor at tech running us through this as well and stating that part 2,3 were open to interpatoin as it is NOT a binding doucument and that these codes were only written by a group of gasfitters and agreed to as the best code of conduct AT THE TIME! and now many years later we know more and have many more new items on the market and as the stupid board has not kept cpd on the codes the codes themselvs are starting to lagg behind the times.
-
AND MATE, AFTER 3 YEARS PERSECUTION....IT IS ALL THEY HAVE ON ME........
but the supposedly neutral ESS, won't give me an answer or ruling........total corruption mate.
-
Someone asked Bickers last night... where do we go for help in applying the NZ 5261?
There is no where and he seemed happy to confirm that.(all the Boards replays not recorded, only what the tradesman said, no minuets taken, hmmmm funny that. :-X
So asked him why we can't ask the auditors for clarification (as they are the people that the Board listen to on prosecutions) and he said and I quote.....they don't BEACUSE THERE IS NO MONEY IN IT FOR THEM!!!!!!
But there is money in it for them after application.... persecuting tradesman......wouldn't it be better for the public's safety to PREVENT the misapplication of NZ 5261, when a well meaning tradesman rings to clarify, wouldn't it be better to tell him.......but there is no money in it for them!!!!
Imagine the money the Board could save on prosecutions, as they are there for the publics safety ::) ::) ::) ::)
Ambulance at the bottom of the cliff....more a kin to a hearse, tossers. A load of bollox.
-
No money in it ? We pay a lot of money, i diddn't realise charities were supposed to make money :P
-
badger, i agree with you. this is not good enough.
i agree with thunder and i was told by the board we CAN use other standards to comply with part one of nzs 5261.
so why the hell doesn't the board acknowledge this and stop their case against you....what it going to take?
today i herd of another tradesman that has been contacted by the board and has been told there has been a complaint made about him.....the board wont give the tradesman the details of who it is (who has made the complaint)and thats not right.watch this space! >:( >:( >:(
-
I too have been told, the author of the letter below shares the same name as one of the authours of NZ 5261 (see inside cover), so after 3 years I have been proven to have done nothing wrong, now the Board on the other hand............
Max (Pederson)
Please can you tell me where and when I might be able to do the course that is my punishment for using a British Standard for the positioning of a califont, and when must I do this by.
Also please can you let me know if I can use the attached British Standard, especially page 42 and 43, in light of an email below.
It is very confusing, please can you clarify, thank you.
Paul Gee
Paul and Emma,
Please find below a brief overview of gasfitting in New Zealand.
“Gasfitting” is a defined term in the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006
In order to do gasfitting you have to be licensed by the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board
Gas work (gasfitting) must comply with the Gas Regulations and be certified by the gasfitter as complying with NZS 5261: 2003, part 1 which is the Performance based design and installation criteria
Part 2 of NZS 5261 gives one way of complying with Part 1, but other ways of complying with part 1 can be used. Relevant Australian or British standards may be used if the gasfitter can demonstrate compliance with NZS 5261, Part1
As I understand it this differs from the UK where home owners are able to do their own gas work.
Other sources of information can be obtained from the Energy Safety Service (www.ess.govt.nz) and the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (www.pgdb.co.nz)
Please telephone if you wish to discuss
Kind regards
Bruce
Bruce Klein
Senior Advisor Building Standards
Department of Building and Housing
Te Tari Kaupapa Whare
DDI: (04) 8174812
Level 6, 86 Customhouse Quay
PO Box 10729, Wellington 6143, New Zealand
Web: http://www.dbh.govt.nz
-
Robbo it does....IT IS ACTUALLY IN THE CODE.... but the Board are so corrupt and vindictive that they are holding tight to this last charge.....I mean it wouldn't look good if they spent all that money to pursue someone....that is then proven to have done nothing wrong, and in reality shows that the Board didn't listen to his warnings for 6 years and accepted incomplete certs that later resulted in an explosion, that they then tried to cover up......
Real stalwarts of the industry......LOL :-[
-
Hi Badger
Is the problem with the fact that you used the British Standard, or the fact that at the disciplinary hearing the British Standard did not come up and so can't be used as part of the appeal? I think is important to understand this as it does have a bearing for others going forward. It doesn't assist you at all, but is an education for others in a similar position as it will make them think about what they say when interviewed by either the Board or an auditor for either a disciplinary hearing or an audit. From all the reading I have done I have grasped that the problem is more it wasn't introduced as evidence at the initial hearing. This must be it becasue the letter from ESS is reasonably clear and any part of the code that is able to be interpreted presumably needs the gasfitter to justify why they took the action they did and which part of the code or standard they are relying on.
Appendix O is a great tool for this and all gasfitters should use it and attach it to their gas certificates and file it - it will show the steps that have been gone through for installation and commissioning and would be very hard evidence to dispute.
-
Badger, did you do the initial install ss per the British Standard or was it a mistake that you've since found meets the British Standard?
-
I knew the BS standard (I am originally from the UK) AND used a rinnai document when I did the install. When it came to the hearing this one charge (out of 44 TRUMPED UP CHARGES) was the easiest to answer so I didn't do any work on it and because I have been shut down, even threatened, in the past for saying "back in the UK" by prominent people in the NZ plumbing industry I went with the rinnai document only, not to mention the only other certifying gasfitter on the Board's panel, even actually the only other one in the room was British.
But all this is semantics and word play......is it dangerous or not?....and it is not, as testified by the occupier, 65 million people in the UK and even the Building and Housing say you can use a British standard.....but the Board put all their faith in a very involved and corrupt investigator....I drew diagrams showing how I knew the fumes would act.
We have a mandatory performance part one, part two isn't manditory.... it is stated as an "acceptable solution", the NZ 5261 also states that part two isn't the only way to do it and other means can be used. I used another method, which has not been proven by the Board to be unsafe, unyet I have to prove it is safe....and I have beyond a shadow of a doubt.......is this worth loosing your home, business, reputation and 18 months with my 5 and 7 year old sons.....no it is not and it is not fair.
WHY AM I GULITY BEFORE I AM PROVEN INNOCENT? AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING!!!!
We are practical people, not lawyers or politicians.....is it dangerous or not? that is all that should come into it. The Board claim to be a professional Board with well informed people, this is bullshit, they are corrupt and vindictive.
-
Fair enough Badget, but what I was trying to establish for others to learn by is that right from the start we need to be very measured in what we say and how we approached the job. As you say you never paid much heed to this particular one as it was the easiest to disprove and yet it is the one they have hung their hook on. Acceptable solutions are just that - acceptable - but it does seem a requirement to prove your self innocent rather than them prove guilt. And I also don't disagree at all around the key question - is it dangerous. The legal bit does come in with the court of appeal and the rules around submission of new vs old evidence and this is why you probably had no joy there. I am stumped as to what avenues are left open to you, however you have done a good job educating a number of practitioners on this forum as to the hooks involved in various parts of gasfitting and providing a defence when charged with various particulars.
-
**Sorry Badger, hit the wrong key!
-
All good Jax.....Badget, thats my missis......
I am firstly going to try every legal, fairminded way using protocol and proceedure.........but if these dicks think I am going to loose what I have and not have my pound of flesh...........well..........
-
all the best in your war badger. hope you teach the bastards a lesson.
-
The latest reply from ESS.....now compare this to 1.1.3 "compliance" in 5261......
I only ask for fair play and an even hand..........I have had neither.
Dear Paul
Thank you for your enquiry. I note that your earlier correspondence indicated that your queries have been in relation to an installation completed in 2006.
The use of a mixture of identified standards to establish compliance with Part 1 of NZS 5261 was envisaged in Part 3 for larger, typically industrial, installations. In such cases it was anticipated engineering design considerations would be made to ensure the essential safety requirements of Part 1 were met.
Energy Safety does not believe it was envisaged that the approach of applying a mixture of standards would be applied to domestic and similar smaller capacity installations.
The document you have previously sent me, Approved Document J, does not fully address the matters identified in Part 1 of NZS 5261 and could not be relied upon on its own to establish compliance with Part 1. In addition Approved Document J is not identified in Part 3 which means its compatibility with New Zealand requirements has not been formally assessed.
Energy Safety does not consider that applying a mixture of standards to establish compliance with Part 1 of NZS 5261 is best practice for domestic or similar gas installations and does not support such an approach.
In any case, as I have advised you previously, any departures from Part 2 should have been documented to demonstrate how the essential requirements of Part 1 are met.
Regards,
Paul Stannard | Technical Officer | Energy Safety
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment
PO Box 1473, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Free Phone 0508 ESS INFO (377463) | DDI +64 4 460 8565 | Fax +64 4 460 1365
Visit our website: www.energysafety.govt.nz
-
he is essentially saying part 2 IS MANDITORY ! ??? thats not true...
-
Its easy to see that he has had private corrospondance with the board over this matter and has used a lawyer to put it into technical terms of a reply....this is very poor performance as the codes CLEARLY STATE!!!!...that part two is a non mandatory part of the code and it is put togeather by gasfitters like you guys as a best practises guide!!!!to conform with part one...NOW if you dig further into the british standards to its performance criteria and if it matches or exceeds part one of the 5261 then BY LAW it is allowed to be used...I have absoutley no idea how this chap Paul Stannard has come to the BLIND conclusion that somehow the terminology used in 1.1.1 applies only to part 3 when it is clear as day that part 2 is ONLY ONE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE and not "THE" only means of compliance they have no legs in the eyes of the law on this one as it is clearly, lay person quoted, to only be "A" means of compliance and not "THE" means of compliance i rest my case your honor! :P
suck on that mr stannard and the pgdb!
-
i agree with you thunderhead, so who do we go too to sort out this BS?...and why should we have too??? its bloody nonsense.
pgdb employees SHOULD know....and the same with ess!.
please would some one tell me who the heck we are too use as a guide????. the board when they hang us at a audit? the ess when a accident has been reported?..oh... ANOTHER TUI ADD !!! >:(
-
It should be black and white........ yes or no.........not some hard to decipher transcript.....its not the bloody Di Vinci code....
Prevention is better than cure.....but as Mr Bickers said there is no money in it for the "experts" to tell us before we install it.
These experts being the people who the Board except their opinions with out question....i.e. the investigators that you only get to meet after the install is done and they get $100 per hour, from the time they leave home.... with all expenses covered...travel, hotels, hire cars, paper work, legal representation, photo copying(yes even photocopying I kid you not), all these guys need to go to work is a pen and paper. Each "case" takes hours and hours of work. 100's of 1000's of dollars.
......or they could just use their infinite knowledge telling us before we do the job........saving the Board all that money before they go about ruining our lives.
WHICH WAY WOULD PROTECT THE PUBLIC MORE?....WHICH WAY WOULD LINE THE POCKETS OF A SELECT FEW MORE?
Totally corrupt, and that is just one aspect. It is the very small tip of a very large, turd filled, brown iceburg.
-
hey badger your whole case stinks of inside behind closed doors action...im just wondering if you might be a good case for an investigative reporter from a programe like 20/20 or 60 minutes...have you thought of presenting your story to any of them??? because it rearly reeks when the person that gave your e employer his license actually is the one who investigates you...straight away alarm bells ring...so have you presented your story to any of them yet...cus they love tangled webs of deciet like your story and i bet you they would love to expose the blantiant corruption at the board!...just a thought anyways.
-
I am totally open to any ideas mate, got any contacts, been on close up but that was a while ago.
-
My reply to the letter mentioned below in this stream to the ESS
Dear Mr Stannard,
Section 1.1.3 Compliance, states-
Part 2 of this standard contains means of compliance for gas installations with appliances and equipment generally under 250 MJ/H (70 Kw) and Part 3 contains means of compliance for gas installations with appliances and equipment generally over 250 MJ/H (70 Kw). Alternative means of compliance may be used provided they can be demonstrated to meet or exceed the performance criteria of Part 1.
The above excerpt from NZ 5261, is in relevance to my application in positioning an appliance and is only in association to part 2, not part 3 as inferred in your email below.
I had sized the pipe correctly, made of materials fit for the purpose, which was fixed to the wall sufficiently (both pipe and appliance), and I positioned the water heater well with in the parameters of two documents. These are the only parameters that are open to influence in installing an appliance open to a gasfitter.
You have stated-
“Energy Safety does not believe it was envisaged that the approach of applying a mixture of standards would be applied to domestic and similar smaller capacity installations”.
And
“In any case, as I have advised you previously, any departures from Part 2 should have been documented to demonstrate how the essential requirements of Part 1 are met.”
In light of your comments, please can you-
· direct me to the reference documents that state that this all should have been documented, relevant by date.
· direct me to the reference documents that state that a “mixture of standards” is not acceptable, relevant by date.
· explain how that the point 1.1.3 “compliance” ,mentioned above, is to be interpreted and where does it say not to mix standards, relevant by date.
Of note is that the new AS/NZS 5601 takes a similar tact regards to compliance and alternative solutions-
From the new AS/NZS 5601, that will replace NZ 5261-
“Where a Standard is cited as part of a means of compliance or in an Appendix, any Standard with equivalent performance requirements may be used as an alternative means of compliance in New Zealand”.
I am sure the UK authors’ of the “J” document would have had safety as their main intention and that fumes do not enter the building, in as much as the document refers specifically to a “FAN FORCED APPLIANCE, UNDER AN OPENING WINDOW”.
And in that vein I offer the below evidence as proof of performance, taken from an earlier email from me to you.
The rigidity of the clearances for a flue terminal in relation to an opening window within 5261 is undermined by the attached Canadian Standard, which is stated in NZ 5261 in part 3 as being a standard that if adhered to means you have complied, on page 121 of NZ 5261 , and is also produced in 2000. It states in 8.14.8 that (iii) 3 ft (900 mm) for inputs exceeding 100 000 Btuh (30 kW); please note that there is no upper limit for mega joule rating or whether it is fan driven, which 5261 does and allows much smaller distances for fan forced flues. This would allow a gravity type flue 900mm below an opening window with the fumes behaving like cigarette smoke drifting upwards where as the appliance in question would eject to fumes some 3 or 4 metres away perpendicular to the dwelling, where they would be diluted before potentially returning to any opening in to the building.
Also Table 16 in 5261 allows for an “active” mechanical inlet, mentioning specifically a spa blower, 500mm nearer than a “passive” open window. This is confusing because it would place the fumes directly below the occupier of the spa, with them masked by the steam, in one of the smallest rooms in the house, which is also not allowed for. So we have a situation where a very powerful fan sucking air into a building is allowed 500mm nearer than a window that is just open, with no vacuum behind it.
The attached British document is the one I would like you to pass judgment on its use, specifically clearances from opening windows for fan forced flues, which allows for 300mm, nearly half the 540mm on site. I also bring to your attention the reports mentioned in the Rinnai letter and ask you to view in light of this and that is from an Australian Gas Authority.
Also of note the clearances for table 16 were amended in May 05, specifically for clearances to opening windows, all be it for horizontal measurements.
There are other numerous references to other British Standards and would have thought if these were ok then this one would be too, British Standards are recognised around the world and as a mark of quality and safety.
This British Standard is still used by over 65 million people who live, in some areas, in much denser numbers very close together. The weather is very much the same as NZ and gas has a much larger per capita use by a far greater population of the UK. The houses are built in a western style very similar to NZ, the biggest difference being that we have much more space here in NZ.
Can I in the future use this document in positioning a fan forced appliance under an opening window, a simple yes or no would be sufficient, please explain your reasons for no.
Please be aware this will form part of my legal action against my loosing my home, business, reputation and time with my kids. I have had to work away for 18 months, please see attached document for the history of how a corrupt and nepotistic Industry Board and their appointed “impartial” investigator effected my family, I do this not for sympathy but to make sure you are fully informed.
There is also a definition that I want to make sure you are aware of…. Collusion… secret cooperation between people in order to do something illegal or underhand.
QUESTION- Which of the people in the attached document had the publics health and safety fore most in their intentions…. And be aware this mans work is still out there, well over a decade worth.
Thank you Paul Gee.
-
Here's the history document that I attached
-
Hey guys print it off, pass it around, put it in the plumbers merchants, papers, school news letter, any where, pass it all around.
To be fore warned is to be fore armed. Sun light is the best disinfectant.
-
surely without giving an appropriate legal answer one way or the other then persecuting whatever they deem illegal is entrapment?!?
-
Welcome to the PGDB and their cronies mate....where's the inspiration to play by the rules......you get fecked either way.....
And then you might have "Wired Twerp" the deputy turn up and ask to see your card..........Yee Feckin Har.......... ;)
-
To the little man smitting me, leave a comment ya tosser.... :-* LOL
-
And the final reply from ESS, below, still no clear answer that I can see...........
Dear Paul
I refer to the questions in your email of 13 October 2012.
NZS 5261 itself gives the answers to these questions. For instance, the references in clause 1.1.3 to ‘design’ and the proviso that alternatives ‘be demonstrated to meet or exceed the performance criteria’ indicate that the person responsible for the design would have to have reached a considered view on the matter. In that case clearly, if the design is to be reliably communicated to anyone else, for whatever reason, it has to be documented.
Clause 3.1.2 gives guidance on the application of Part 3. I consider my earlier advice to you that ‘Energy Safety does not consider that applying a mixture of standards to establish compliance with Part 1 of NZS 5261 is best practice for domestic or similar gas installations and does not support such an approach’ is consistent with NZS 5261.
The requirement that alternative means of criteria meet or exceed the means of compliance clearly has to apply to both Part 2 and Part 3 of NZS 5261. It is in fact more relevant to Part 3, as clause 3.1.2 incidates.
I consider that I have reached the limit of the advice I can give you on these matters. I urge you to obtain your own expert technical or legal advice to assist you further.
Regards,
Paul Stannard | Technical Officer | Energy Safety
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment
PO Box 1473, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Free Phone 0508 ESS INFO (377463) | DDI +64 4 460 8565 | Fax +64 4 460 1365
Visit our website: www.energysafety.govt.nz
Subscribe to the Energy Safety Business Update for our free newsletter
-
Quote........"be demonstrated to meet or exceed the performance criteria"
So let me get this right, the 65 million people of the UK, with a larger per capita usage of gas, in some places packed in very dense populations, in very similar western style design buildings with probably the same if not worse weather conditions and used since the year 2000 (and still in use)........ARE CONSIDERED WHAT??
Wouldn't that be considered to demonstrate a meeting or exceeding of the criteria?? Surely its a matter of physics and reality, not when you wrote it down, it is either safe or unsafe.
A powered flue in NZ would perform the exact same as a flue in UK, unless they go the other way.... like the water down a plug hole, LOL.
It appears that it comes down to bureaucracy, politics and connections..... not common sense and transparency....
Of interest...Mr Stannard just did a presentation at a certain plumbing group's AGM, along with Max Pederson.....hhhmmmm?
-
badger, this is clearly nonsense!
(Clause 3.1.2 gives guidance on the application of Part 3. I consider my earlier advice to you that Energy Safety does not consider that applying a mixture of standards to establish compliance with Part 1 of NZS 5261 is best practice for domestic or similar gas installations and does not support such an approach is consistent with NZS 5261.)
since when did you say you where mixing standards?????
as i understand it, (and correct me if i am wrong) you have used the British standard to comply with the ONLY mandatory part of the code...part one.
My question to you Badger is, do you believe that your installation complies with the British standard completely?.... then it ALSO complies with part 1 of nzs5261 and you are legally in the RIGHT.full stop. stannard is wrong, and clearly has had a guts full of talking to you.,which is wrong.
You have already proved that your installation is safe by stating that the customer has had no issues with products of combustion entering the house,as we as gas fitters using common sense and experience fully know, a power flue of this type mounted 250mm off the wall expelling products of combustion away from the house will dissipate with air and any air mix that would move back into a open window will be completely safe.FACT !....oh how do i know you ask???? its call experience!!!just 20 years with this one product !!and i have installed hundreds of Bosch, rinnai, rheems, palomas.
regards :)
-
I think he is saying that you can't mix 5261 with this British standard, but I am using it as an alternative TO 5261, but even so if you use one code to size the pipe(friction along length is a constant, unless on another planet) and you use another code to site the flue terminal and appliance, whats the problem......unless its because if he says its OK them I am 100% innocent....after loosing my house and business over some thing I tried to warn about for 6 years, asking an MP three years before the explosion, the explosion happened in April 2009, check out the date of this letter(attached) sent to the Board by Nick Smith MP and another subsequent letter asking Williamson for someone to look into it..but still waiting..... :o
-
AND PEOPLE WONDER WHY I GO ON AND ON.... AND USE NAUGHTY WORDS ;)
-
So an MP can forget flying by helicopter to a mansion hosted by a really big German guy and he can't remember receiving $25 000, but he can adduce new evidence for his appeal..........
I did nothing wrong, got framed, but I can't adduce any new evidence for my appeal....and loose everything.
That sounds fair.
-
Badger, as soon as that idiot Banks opened his mouth I thought of what you had related regarding your case. Trouble is that he is very much part of the problem pervading all parts of this , very corrupt ,governance of the country :'(