Recommendations for getting gas checked

[Risk Adverse 4]

It's been a while since we had our gas installation checked. It's a very simple arrangement with a gas bottle with regulator mounted on the aft deck, and a small gas stove in the galley.  Any recommendations for someone to check this?  We are berthed in Half Moon Bay.

[K4309 358]

1 hour ago, Risk Adverse said:

It's been a while since we had our gas installation checked. It's a very simple arrangement with a gas bottle with regulator mounted on the aft deck, and a small gas stove in the galley.  Any recommendations for someone to check this?  We are berthed in Half Moon Bay.

I have recently investigated this myself.

Two out of three gas fitters (recommended by various people for marine work) do not know or understand the gas standards NZS 5601 part 2.

For an installation like yours with a single appliance, you are allowed to use flexible hose to NZS 1869 Class C, which for the layman is standard BBQ hose, costs $12/m at Burnsco and costs the gas fitters $4/m.

Two of the gas fitters claimed for that single appliance install I needed copper hose with flexible stainless steel at each end. The additional cost was several thousand dollars. Additionally they were stating I needed 2 gas sniffers interlinked to a solenoid shut off valve. The standards (and the other gas fitter) says I don't.

More concerningly, one of said gas fitters said I don't need automatic flame out on all elements of the stove. The standard is very explicit on this, it does. I've already spent $2k replacing my perfectly good 38 year old stove with a modern, flimsy one to meet this requirement. Even when I quired this, and stated I have a copy of the standard in front of me, and quoted the clauses, they continued to provide incorrect information.

Be aware that if you stove doesn't have automatic flame out on all elements, you either need to replace it, or perhaps not get a gas certificate unless your insurance co explicitly asks for it. (or you don't mind blowing $2 or $3k on an new stove for compliance purposes)

As an aside, the Insurance Co says they don't like copper hose cause it corrodes, while 2 gas fitters are telling me I must have copper hose (I think the expensive stuff is rubber annealed now to get around this issue).

Anyway, I highly recommend Graeme at Marine and Domestic Gas. He is based in Howick, but also travels regularly to Gulf Harbour.

Gas Specialists | Auckland | Domestic & Marine | Installation & Repairs (marinedomesticgas.co.nz)

[aardvarkash10 1,070]

2 hours ago, K4309 said:

I have recently investigated this myself.

...

Anyway, I highly recommend Graeme at Marine and Domestic Gas. He is based in Howick, but also travels regularly to Gulf Harbour.

Gas Specialists | Auckland | Domestic & Marine | Installation & Repairs (marinedomesticgas.co.nz)

And this, friends, is part of why I went to kerosene...

[Sudden5869 17]

Robin at Marine & Domestic Gas helped me a couple of years ago. I'm in HMB too. 

marinegas1@outlook.com

[slanty 8]

Would love to see the relevant parts of the standard if you're able to share them. It's a job that's overdue on my boat.

[K4309 358]

Unfortunately my official copy of NZS 5601 part 2 is via a work subscription to the AS/NZS standards and it is extremely heavily embargoed with copyright protection. I couldn't even copy and past single clauses, or print it.

However, I checked the key relevant clauses with this draft copy for consultation and the key clauses are unchanged (the ones I mentioned in my post above). I can't vouch that there are no differences in the whole document but this is a good starter for someone wanting to understand requirements. Especially for many of the tedious things like set backs for flammable surfaces from gas hobbs (200mm horixtonal, 150mm vertical), the mind-boggling requirements for a gas locker, signage, signage again and some more signage, etc.

as-nzs-56012-2020 draft .pdf

[Island Time 1,286]

The main thing to note is, from page iii

"This Standard includes a statement that its requirements do not apply retrospectively"

[K4309 358]

2 hours ago, Island Time said:

The main thing to note is, from page iii

"This Standard includes a statement that its requirements do not apply retrospectively"

That is quiet irrelevant, especially for insurance purposes.

Two reasons:

The insurance co's via the condition assessment reports want to know if the boat complies with the current NZ standards, not the standards from 1975, and

If a gas fitter touches anything on the system, then the whole system needs to be upgraded. Noting that you aren't allowed to touch anything yourself and have to get a gas fitter even to crimp a hose clip.

There are several reasons a gas fitter may need to touch the system, one being the standard flexible hose (1869 class C) that costs $12/m from Burnsco is supposed to be replaced every 7 years, and you can't replace it yourself. People may want their old system pressure tested as a basic and prudent check. Installing a pressure test point at the regulator would also require the whole system to be inspected / upgraded.

Of course any replacements would also trigger the upgrade, say a regulator, new stove etc.

[Island Time 1,286]

3 hours ago, K4309 said:

That is quiet irrelevant, especially for insurance purposes.

Two reasons:

The insurance co's via the condition assessment reports want to know if the boat complies with the current NZ standards, not the standards from 1975, and

If a gas fitter touches anything on the system, then the whole system needs to be upgraded. Noting that you aren't allowed to touch anything yourself and have to get a gas fitter even to crimp a hose clip.

There are several reasons a gas fitter may need to touch the system, one being the standard flexible hose (1869 class C) that costs $12/m from Burnsco is supposed to be replaced every 7 years, and you can't replace it yourself. People may want their old system pressure tested as a basic and prudent check. Installing a pressure test point at the regulator would also require the whole system to be inspected / upgraded.

Of course any replacements would also trigger the upgrade, say a regulator, new stove etc.

Sorry but that is not correct.

If a boat complied with the regs when it was built it still complies, unless in poor or unsafe condition. That is what "Retrospective" means.

I agree that if anything is changed, that needs to comply with the regs at the time it was changed. You do NOT need to redo the whole system just to replace a gas line (for example).

The issue is finding someone who actually understands the regs. 

The insurance co "condition reports" I've seen just say does the gas install comply with NZ standards, not "Current standards"  the "current standard" says clearly it is not retrospective, and therefore a system that complied at time of build and is still in good order does "comply with current standards". 

Show me where in the standards this is not so.

[K4309 358]

1 hour ago, Island Time said:

Sorry but that is not correct.

If a boat complied with the regs when it was built it still complies, unless in poor or unsafe condition. That is what "Retrospective" means.

I agree that if anything is changed, that needs to comply with the regs at the time it was changed. You do NOT need to redo the whole system just to replace a gas line (for example).

The issue is finding someone who actually understands the regs. 

The insurance co "condition reports" I've seen just say does the gas install comply with NZ standards, not "Current standards"  the "current standard" says clearly it is not retrospective, and therefore a system that complied at time of build and is still in good order does "comply with current standards". 

Show me where in the standards this is not so.

I would be very very keen to hear if you can name a gas fitter that will sign off (issue a gas certificate) for work on part of a system if the remainder of the system doesn't comply with the standard. I'm not wanting to sound argumentative, but after my recent personal experience of trying to find a gas fitter that understands the basics of NZS 5601 part 2, I think finding someone that would do what you outline would be akin to finding rocking horse sh*t. I asked gas fitters if they would do this, as what you say was my interpretation of the standards as well.

I had intensive discussions with my insurer about this very topic, both by phone and in writing. Part of the logic becomes circular.

And I'd like to clarify that I don't disagree with your position, I think it is what was intended by the retrospective aspect of the standard. The problem comes about with putting it into practice.

In my discussions with the insurer, he stated they don't need a gas certificate, and I managed to get in writing that they will still offer insurance (conditional on the overall state of my boat) however it would carry an exclusion for losses associated with said gas system. In saying that they do not require gas certificate, he stated they just want to know that the system "is safe".

This is where it gets sticky. I stated I can demonstrate my system is safe due to track record. It is 38 years old and hasn't blown the boat up. And, it was 'complaint' at the time of install way back in 1984.

However, I need a third party to sign off that the gas system is safe. I discussed this with maybe 6 marine surveyors and boat builders in addition to the 3 gas fitters. They all told me I was dreaming. The problem comes about as to how you define something as safe. The current standard - NZS 5601 part 2 - prescribes what is deemed as safe. After all, that is the purpose of a standard. It's purpose is to describe what are the minimum safe requirements.

So, if you gas system doesn't comply with what is currently prescribed as safe, how can you say it is safe?

Referring to your first sentence above (the bit I've put in bold), it doesn't matter if the installation predates the gas act 2010, if it doesn't comply with the current prescription for what is safe, then it can't be deemed as safe. Unfortunately, if something can't be deemed as safe, it must then be considered unsafe.

My apologies that this is sounding excessively wordy, but this is an account of the conversation I had with the insurer. On pointing out this logic, that all he wanted me to do was demonstrate it was safe, and on asking how I could do that, he agreed the standard prescribes what is safe, therefore it needs to comply with the standard - anyway, halfway through this conversation a colleague in the insurers office interrupted him on the call, there was a long period of silence, he came back on the line and said that he would need to come back to me on the subject... Basically he was talking through his arse and got pulled up by a colleague mid conversation.

The short story was that I had a choice of continuing with my current set up, with out a gas certificate and with the exclusion on my insurance, or buying a new stove with flame out on all elements ($2k), and spending $800 on pressure testing and issue of a gas certificate (with me installing the stove and running new hose) in order to get a gas certificate so that I was not captured by the current insurance co. Once I complete my condition assessment, rig check and gas certificate, I will then be enable to shop around for the least cost insurance.

PS, I also need to apply a few stickers for compliance, once an LPG sticker on the outside of the lockers so emergency services can find it, and on the inside, a sign saying nothing else can be stored in here accept gas (or words to that effect).

PPS, I fully understand why others on here are going for kero (if you can find them) or induction cooktops and the associated lithium set ups. The main reason I went with gas was cause I got 20% off a stove at the Burnsco sale in Feb, so I can retain my oven and grill as well as two burners. It is the functionality we have an use on the boat, and I didn't want to loose that.

[Island Time 1,286]

I totally understand your position. It's a shambles and I don't believe was the intention of the standard.

The issue is that the gas installers wont take the "risk" of signing off the install, even though it IS compliant with current standards (Through the retrospective clause). They feel they are at risk, and are not prepared to accept that "risk". IMO this is a failure of the gas registration and education system.

My boat is in the same situation as yours - built in 1988. My insurance condition report stated "gas compliant at time of install"  and that was accepted.

There are very few NZ laws that are retrospective. For example, the electrical regs are updated say every 5 -10 years. If you had to be compliant with the new ones, then every building in the country would have to be rewired each time. That is patently ridiculous. The ONLY time a reg IS retrospective, is when a safety issue is identified, and then it states it IS RETROSPECTIVE. 

[Island Time 1,286]

Ok, further to that. 

Today I have made a complaint to the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board as follows. 

"I would like to complain about the current situation regarding LPG on Boats. 
To get a gas cert for the vessel is currently impossible without a complete reinstall. 
The issue is that despite current standard, page iii "This Standard includes a statement that its requirements do not apply retrospectively" the gas fitters are insisting on compliance with the CURRENT standards, even for an EXISTING installation. This is in direct contradiction to the current standard, page iii as quoted above.
From the standard,  this clause means that if the system complied at the time of install, and is in good order, it still complies. 
Currently I cannot find an installer who understands this. I work in the marine industry, and know of multiple vessels removing gas altogether due to this issue, and others being forced to spend 1000's sometimes 10's of thousands to comply as per a new installation, when their existing ones were safe and compliant at the time of install. 
Please can I have a response stating that these existing installs do comply (if in good order), and therefore are acceptable for a gas certificate, or where in the standards or laws this interpretation is in error.  This response can then be provided to a licensed gas fitter on inspection, to ensure that money is not wasted on an already compliant system."

Be interesting to see if there is any response!

[K4309 358]

46 minutes ago, Island Time said:

Ok, further to that. 

Today I have made a complaint to the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board as follows. 

"I would like to complain about the current situation regarding LPG on Boats. 
To get a gas cert for the vessel is currently impossible without a complete reinstall. 
The issue is that despite current standard, page iii "This Standard includes a statement that its requirements do not apply retrospectively" the gas fitters are insisting on compliance with the CURRENT standards, even for an EXISTING installation. This is in direct contradiction to the current standard, page iii as quoted above.
From the standard,  this clause means that if the system complied at the time of install, and is in good order, it still complies. 
Currently I cannot find an installer who understands this. I work in the marine industry, and know of multiple vessels removing gas altogether due to this issue, and others being forced to spend 1000's sometimes 10's of thousands to comply as per a new installation, when their existing ones were safe and compliant at the time of install. 
Please can I have a response stating that these existing installs do comply (if in good order), and therefore are acceptable for a gas certificate, or where in the standards or laws this interpretation is in error.  This response can then be provided to a licensed gas fitter on inspection, to ensure that money is not wasted on an already compliant system."

Be interesting to see if there is any response!

That is great IT, I hope it effects positive change.

There are two other tales I'd like to recount from my dealings with gas fitters, that indicate the Gasfitters Board has far more significant issues than just this.

The first one I spoke to stated that bayonet quick disconnect fittings are required on the gas bottle. This is so emergency services can remove the gas bottle without tools. I thought that was a bit odd, cause bayonet fittings are notoriously unreliable and leak like a bastard. Turns out the regs don't require this. So the gas fitter was telling me I needed something that is known to be unsafe.

Anyway, the bit that makes me think the Gas Fitters Board have much greater problems - there are two types of gas piping approved for use in buildings that are not fit for purpose. One is a gas pipe that is not heat resistant. However almost every gas appliance produces heat. that is what they are designed to do. The good gas fitter has been called to properties with gas leaks where said heat-sensitive pipe has melted at the connection with the gas appliance.

Further, there is a type of gas pipe system that uses connectors that have rubber seals in them. The seals have a design life of 10 years. These joints are placed behind jib walls etc in new builds. The major concern here is that when they fail, to find the leak you need to rip all the jib off the house. Either that or create an environment where you have a gas leak in a confined space (the wall cavity) where the only other thing you have is electrical wiring and light switches. I couldn't think of anything more genius than creating a confined space with a gas leak and an ignition source.

In saying that, the building code has all sorts of nonsense through it. Wooden windows (the key part of external weather envelope) only need to last 10 years. Pile foundations on new builds only need to last 50 years - cause they are really easy to replace once they fail. It is very easy to see how we ended up with leaking buildings that were built to code.

[aardvarkash10 1,070]

23 minutes ago, K4309 said:

These joints are placed behind jib walls etc in new builds

Just furl the jib and it will be accessable, surely 😁

For my sins I once managed a tertiary provider of training to the plumbing and gas industry.  The board was, to put it succinctly, a collection of geriatric iliterates with a fondness for gin and ensuring the continued protected status of thier businesses.

It may have changed, but I see no evidence.

[K4309 358]

10 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Just furl the jib and it will be accessable, surely 😁

For my sins I once managed a tertiary provider of training to the plumbing and gas industry.  The board was, to put it succinctly, a collection of geriatric iliterates with a fondness for gin and ensuring the continued protected status of thier businesses.

It may have changed, but I see no evidence.

jib / gib

How many times do I have to tell you I'm an engineer and not an English teacher?!?

[aardvarkash10 1,070]

enjineer, surely?  

Now I know that, I'll type slowly so you can follow...  😆

[Island Time 1,286]

42 minutes ago, K4309 said:

That is great IT, I hope it effects positive change.

 

Well, if nothing, next is to pass it on to an MP - isnt this Govt supposed to be removing red tape 

[CarpeDiem 510]

19 hours ago, Island Time said:

Be interesting to see if there is any response!

You'll get a response. As this will be deemed a OIA request.  In the unlikely event you don't get a response, you can file with the ombudsman. 

What will be interesting is what kind of response you get 😜😂. ... .. 

Thanks for taking the initiative. 

[mischief 5]

Interestingly, I couldn't actually install a kero stove if i wanted to.... according to class rules...

(d) Prior to 1st January 2006, a minimum two-burner stove with grill and/or oven in working order shall be permanently fitted with a gimballed fitting.  With effect from 1st January 2006, as a minimum requirement, a two-burner LPG stove with grill and/or oven in working order shall be fitted permanently with a gimballed mounting and any dispensations given under rule 2.9 will cease to apply to this rule from that date. 

 

 

 

[aardvarkash10 1,070]

Do they stipulate the temperature setting of the beer fridge and brand of rum as well?  🤨