all the best in your war badger. hope you teach the bastards a lesson.

he is essentially saying part 2 IS MANDITORY !      thats not true...

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 !!! 

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.

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.

 

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.

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..........

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