Welcome to OPGO

Why is the UK always so far behind the rest of Europe, boilers have come a long way over the years, better, safer and more controllable and yet unvented cylinders have not moved with the boilers, or maybe more to the point Part G of the Building Regulations has not moved forward, my reason for bringing this up is I recently fitted a Viessmann 100 system boiler, very good boiler, now with these boilers and many other boilers on the market, you have the option of purchasing a DHW sensor to allow the boiler to control the cylinder temperature directly, this in my opinion is a far better and more accurate way to control the cylinder temperature, rather than using an old fashioned bi-metal strip as the way to control the temperature, Viessmann state that when using the DHW sensor with their boiler no 2 port valve is required, now this is correct in my opinion, the boiler management control will only heat the cylinder to the required temperature, with the old system you were relying on an external stat which could fail, so it needed to protect against the production of heat which could over heat the cylinder, now the cylinder we were installing, which was specified by the client, (otherwise this situation would not of arisen as I would of used my preferred cylinder), was prewired on the immersion and boiler overheat stat sides, I needed a port to insert my boiler sensor, but all the ports were full, I rang the manufacturer to ask which was the boiler over heat side as I wanted to remove it to install my sensor, but leaving the immersion overheat in place, they began a lecture about I MUST use the 2 port valve, I hung up, not going to listen to people who are stuck in their ways, I traced the wiring myself and removed the sensor that was not needed and placed the Viessmann sensor in, works a treat.

 

What I find most annoying about all this is this manufacturer and most other cylinder manufacturers who state Part G as a safety part of their cylinder installation, are the very same companies who when producing twin coil cylinders, for solar, provide you with two 2 port valve, one for the boiler side and one for the solar side, now the 2 port valve they supply is NOT suitable for the solar circuit, it cannot take the temperature, nor can it take the glycol, so is of no use to the installer, they also supply you with 2 x cylinder/overheat stats, now with the solar circuit you do need to run the solar pump via the overheat stat, to shut off the solar pump in the event of the cylinder reaching high temperatures, but why do they supply you with a overheat stat that is linked to a cylinder stat, so that if the stat gets adjusted the solar will stop its input early, the reason for this in my opinion is they simply want to supply what they already have, to save themselves costs, my other point is, as we all know heat rises, it’s not rocket science, so I would like to know why when they manufacture twin coil cylinders do they have a thermal cut out at the top for the boiler and a thermal cut out at the bottom for the solar, in my opinion this is wrong and is why I object to the technical of a manufacturer preaching to me about Part G safety, why have the solar cut off (overheat stat) at the bottom, if say for example the boiler stat failed and the boiler continued its input, at the set point the top overheat stat will trip, stopping the heat input from the boiler, BUT the lower stat may not of reached its trip temperature, which could allow solar input to continue which could overheat the cylinder, why do they not have the solar overheat stat and only a overheat stat at the top of the cylinder, so that it trips out at the same time as the top overheat stat, seems simple to me, but I believe the manufacturers just adapted their existing cylinders slightly to sell twin coils where they had to spend the least money and make the least manufacturing production changes to keep profits up, rather than starting from scratch with a new design, a bit like the first condensing boilers from the UK, small changes were made to try and produce condensing boilers with dire consequences, condense dripping onto the burner and causing corrosion, but then finally bigger changes were made, but only after a lot of installers switched to other brands from Europe who had already overcome these problems, the UK need to move with the times more quickly, Building Regulations need to be updated more frequently to accommodate changes in technology, we need to get rid of the old boy network who control things at the moment and are happy to cosy up to manufacturers to keep everything sweet and not rock the boat, changes are needed and if the UK ihas any chance to reach it CO reduction targets we need to embrace new technology, not sit on old school regulations that are outdated.

Lots of woes with the way National Grid operatives deal with low pressure problems.

Story 1

Called them out a couple of weeks ago to a property with 16mb at meter as I am required to do. Go back two weeks later and still 16mb . Terribly sorry will have to call them out again I say. Explain on the phone that they were out 2 weeks ago. Anyway the operative arrives and I have a chat with him. I explain the issues and say that I have heard that when they insert a new gas pipe through the old steel pipe it gives pressure problems due to reduced diameter. He agrees it does but tells me that they are under instruction from their managers that as long as there is 16mb at the meter they do not need to take any action.

Now to me that is all fine and dandy but the customer is having to wait a couple of hours every time I call round, and if I call again I am meant to notify them again. So if this is the case why is there no notification attached to the meter saying do not call NG out if 16mbar as has already been investigated. In these days of energy efficiency and CO emissions why is everybody's time and petrol being so wasted as well as stress and grief to the customer.

Secondly if they know that inserting pipe through original steel pipe is inadequate why are they allowed to do it?

Story 2

This sort of thing has happened to me on more than one occasion

Called out NG to attend 14mb at meter with everything run on maximum. Operative arrives with trainee. He virtually ignores me and is instructing trainee. We run the appliances and he says 14mb OK . I argue with him and he says that he is allowed to leave it. I say no you are not, I would like to speak to your manager. He refuses. We again get in a discussion and I say that the cut off point is 15mb and that is only at peak times which it wasn't in the middle of the day.

He then says to his traineee run three rings on the cooker and announces triumphantly that look you have 20mb now - that is all that I need to do. Its your pipe-work (not that I installed it) . I say no its not, that it is the pipe-work in from the road given that he had changed the governor already . Another argument ensues about the need for the meter to supply 70KW nett at the right figure. I finally get him to ring his manager although I could not speak to him . He orders him to get a team out to upgrade road supply.

Its frightening that this bloke was training some-one and could have left issues all over the shop.

And they think these people can investigate CO!

 
I would like to add that some operatives are excellent and the operative in the first story was very knowledgable and apologetic and said he would see what he could do but knew his manager would not allow an upgrade from the road.

Just a PS: One thing I am grateful for - a very recent change, is that for low pressure they no longer have to read you the interminable "Do not pass Go do not collect £200 notice." (no naked flames, no light switches on or off door and windows open etc)

Dear Chris,

Please see below an article highlighting the risk of lack of skirt ventilation.

Members of The Organisation of Professional Operatives (OPGO) have had concerns in this regard for several years. On their behalf we have raised the issue with Gas Safe Register, who tell us to follow unsafe procedures and issue a warning notice. We have also brought it up at the Gas Industry Liaison Group where the UKLPGA didn't have the courtesy to even give us a reply, but the HP&PHA at least advised that they would inform their members via their quarterly newsletter.

Up and down the country our members continually come across lack of skirt ventilation, yet this is never rectified and no one in the industry wants to take a proactive role in tackling this potentially dangerous ongoing situation.

If HSE is willing to prosecute, and cite lack of skirt ventilation in that prosecution, is it also willing to be proactive in trying to get to grips with what could turn out to be a major problem?

>From our members point of view, if the situation is "At Risk" under the GIUSP then this issue cannot be ignored by HSE and the industry ad infinitum; the other alternative is to downgrade lack of skirt ventilation to "NCS".

 

Plumber and mobile home park fined as residents left at risk

Date:
26 March 2010

An Essex plumber has been prosecuted for carrying out substandard and illegal work at a mobile home park, exposing residents to serious risk.
Harlow Magistrates' Court heard today how Michael O'Sullivan laid gas pipes underneath a property without ensuring there was proper ventilation.

The pipes passed through a brick base, which the mobile home sat upon, and the lack of ventilation meant any gas leak could have accumulated underneath the home and formed a deadly mixture.

Mr O'Sullivan was fined £1,000 with £500 costs and Sines Parks Ltd, the park management company which hired him to do the work, was also fined £2,500 with £2,000 costs.
Speaking after the case, HSE Inspector Steve Hook said:

"If one of these pipes had leaked gas underneath the mobile home, it could have seriously endangered people's lives. It was extremely fortunate the poor workmanship was discovered before it was too late."

Worried residents at the mobile home site in Breach Barns in Galley Hill, Waltham Abbey contacted the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in early 2009 after discovering unsafe fittings on cylinders of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) used for heating and cooking.
Sines Parks Ltd, which owns and runs the park, had previously commissioned Mr O'Sullivan to carry out work on various gas fittings and pipes at the site.
Mr O'Sullivan was not registered to work on gas equipment and his work was found to be unsafe by HSE gas specialists investigating the complaints. HSE issued the self-employed plumber with an immediate prohibition notice, banning him from carrying out any further gas work until he was qualified and registered. HSE also warned all residents about his work.
At court today, Michael O'Sullivan, of Tillingham Court, Winter Way, Waltham Abbey, admitted breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 3(1) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998.
Sines Parks Ltd, of College Road, Harrow, admitted breaching Regulation 4 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. The company had a duty to check that Mr O'Sullivan was registered.
The company owns 13 parks in the region. Residents own their own mobile home but Sines Parks Ltd retains ownership of the land and manages the utilities.
Inspector Steve Hook added:
"There is a reason the HSE operates the Gas Safe Register - working with gas appliances is difficult, specialised and potentially dangerous. Getting it wrong can cost lives.
"It is illegal for an unregistered person to carry out such work. When unqualified workers try to bypass the law in this way they are not only putting themselves at risk of prosecution and a large fine, they are also putting people's lives at risk.
"Companies also have a legal obligation to ensure anyone commissioned to work on gas equipment is legally qualified to do the job. It is easy to check if someone is registered with the Gas Safe Register and there is no excuse for failing to make that check."

Yes we have a duty under the GIUSP to issue warning notices, but our members also feel a moral duty to the customers in their care to create a level playing field, quite obviously putting right one property on a 100 unit site where all the other units have a lack of skirt ventilation isn't going to increase the safety of that site very much. Nationwide the numbers of non-compliant installations would be staggering based on OPGO members findings
Having highlighted this problem to the industry, including the HSE we would also feel a moral duty in the event of an incident involving skirt ventilation to publicise the fact when where and how it was brought to that industries attention.

OPGO members suggest, to at least get some action on this issue, that our industry should work with the insurance industry and point out to site owners and caravan/RPH owners that not only do they have a duty of care to other site owners (whereby, as in the report above, they could face prosecution in the event of an incident), but that if an incident occurred their insurance may be invalid if the skirt ventilation doesn't comply with our industry's requirements.

I look forward to your normal speedy reply.

Regards,

Barry Matthews