Boatgypsy

I might be wrong here Alan, but I seem to remember that the reason LPG fridges are no longer available and are frowned upon by the BSS is that there was a significant incidence of corrosion in the burner tube resulting in blockage of the flue and backflow of exhaust gases into the boat. The same fridges being designed for the caravan market didn't have the same problem in caravans where ventilation is easier to acheive. I got rid of my old gas fridge for that reason, although in my case the flakes of rust just kept blocking the gas jet. OK Carl - I'm trying to envisage this boat of yours where the exhaust system is completely surrounded by the hull, other than by the fact that the hull surrounds everything in it. Yes, if a part of the hull is formed so that it completely shields part of the exhaust, that part would not need additional shielding or lagging, but Dave's point was that his exhaust didn't need any lagging or shielding because it was difficult to reach. In fact he seems to be saying that the difficulty in reaching it means that it is shielded! At no point does the BSS requirement say that an exhaust has to have "protective exhaust shielding" stamped on it - what's your point there Carl?

I disagree, the word "shielding" means a protective barrier, the mere fact that an exhaust is difficult to reach does not mean that it has a shield around it. There is no such thing as an "inaccesible location", all parts of a boat are generally accessible, some more so than others. The BSS checklist at item 2.15.2 states "lagging or shielding must provide complete coverage". I'm afraid the implication is yours, not that of the checklist. Have you read the requirement?

Alan, have you asked BSS why they don't do this? I'm quite prepared to ask the question because I too would like to see the information published, but if you've already been told no there's not much point in me asking. If they are not happy to do this I would suspect it would be more to do with the fact that they are a very small team with limited resources, any additional work means more expenditure and a rise in the cost of certificates to pay for it.

I have just obtained, with very little effort, the most recent accident and incident statistics kept by the BSS. Whoops, the table wouldn't display properly - I'll try and put it on here shortly. Duh! Anyone know who to get a spreadsheet to display on here?

Hey Carl, you'll be ok though cos you'll be able to get the MOD to sign off their jerrycans won't you. I'm sure that would satisfy your examiner.

I've used muric acid (aka hydrochloric acid) to good effect - it can be bought very cheap and in the right concentration as patio cleaner. You do have to thoroughly wash parts in a neutralising solution afterwards - weak lye is good.

I've been through Hurleston bottom lock with anodes on my hull sides - no problem, they don't stick out as far as the side rubbing strakes.

That makes more sense. Even though lepto is a nasty disease, it's quite hard to catch, given the dispersion of rat wee in a body of water and the frequency we come into contact with natural water. I would think a rower would have quite a lot of contact with water though and that perhaps explains his exposure. Damn bad luck for the guy and his family though. The last fatal case I heard of was a guy working on dredging operations at Fradley a few years ago.

There is no specific requirement in the BSS for an earth, and as examiners are not allowed to test any electrical equipment, they would not spot the lack of one. However, there may well be some change in this direction in the next year or so.

Is it possible that there is a crack in the housing where the drain plug screws in?

It seems it's your day for rubbishing everything I say! I'm not aware of anyone ever suffocating on a boat for lack of ventilation. Death might be caused by carbon monoxide poisoning or lpg asphyxiation or even carbon dioxide build up, but not by having breathed all of the available air. The reason for ventilation being downgraded to a recommendation is a recognition that it is better to try to control the source of the risk rather than control the mitigating factors. If a boat fails the ventilation check the examiner still has to issue a warning notice which states that the boat poses an immediate danger and/or the occupants are at risk. Alan - BSS do keep stats on reported accidents, as do other organisations. Have they actually refused to give them to you, or have they said that they don't keep them?

Who was Andy Holmes? What was his connection with the canal and how did he contract the disease?

OK, here's the thing. A jerrycan - for the sake of argument, 10 litres capacity, being used to store spare petrol, is clearly acceptable. It is of the right size, the right material and it is doing the job it was designed for. The same jerrycan but now 20 litres capacity is still of the right material and designed for the purpose of storing fuel, is not OK, because the limits set by the BSS, based on other legislation and regulation, is 10 litres. A 20 litre jerrycan used to store diesel is acceptable because the BSS makes no stipulation about quantity of the less volatile fuel. However, the case we have been discussing, which was raised by Carl, is where a jerrycan has effectively been modified by the addition of some device to make it a portable fuel tank, which is now theoretically limited to 27 litres of petrol. My view is that a BSS examiner looking at such a jerrycan would have no choice but to see the jerrycan as not having been designed for the use to which it is being put. The BSS examination checking procedures clearly state that in such circumstances the jerrycan must be accompanied by an appropriate declaration from the manufacturer or supplier that they support the jerrycan being used for this new purpose. It is exactly the same reason that it would not be acceptable to store petrol in a 5 litre plastic oil container, because it was not designed for that purpose. If a boat owner decides to change or adapt a piece of equipment to perform a safety critical function which differs from that for which it was designed, it is likely that the manufacturer would absove themselves of all responsibility. Jerrycan manufacturers are unlikely to give carte blanche to Carl, or anyone else to use, to use their product in a way which it was not designed for and for which they have not tested. But if they were happy to say in writing - yeah, go ahead, it's fine by us, we'll take all responsibility in the event it blows up, then yes, it would pass! Are there any examiners who disagree?

That's a bit petty. Of course I'm making an assumption because I've never been to your boat or seen the device you have insisted would pass a BSS, my comments were based entirely on your description. OK I'm more than happy to accept your explanation that your device allows a jerrycan to be disconnected from the fuel line without leaving it in an unsealed condition, so you can therefore remove it for refuelling offboard. However, the point still stands that a jerrycan is not of "suitable proprietory manufacture" for use as part of a portable fuel system. It's not a grey area; it's not open to interpretation; it is written in clear black and white. Your jerrycans might well exceed the build quality of your plastic outboard tank, but given that they were not designed as portable fuel tanks they would need a supporting declaration from the manufacturer. Of course if your boat is on a waterway where it doesn't need to pass a BSS check, this is all irrelevant, but I thought we were discussing whether or not it would pass a BSS check - if only for the benefit of someone else who has one of these devices and does want to use it on a BSS covered waterway. As no one else is contributing to this, perhaps you'd like to PM me if you want continue the discussion. Ian

I doubt that, despite what they are saying publically. If they refused a licence to someone who had refused to pay the fine, that would be open to a legal challenge and they would likely lose. They might like to say that this is a charge and not a fine, but that is pure semantics. A fine is a payment levied for a failure to do something or for doing something against a rule. A charge is a payment levied for a service. Given that I already have a licence which allows me to moor pretty much anywhere for up to 2 weeks, I am not getting an additional service. Just my view, but I would be very suprised to see someone not get a licence because they refused to pay such a fine. That would be ridiculous - on second thoughts, I wouldn't put it past them to try.

Carl, my point was that such a tank could not be disconnected or connected whilst keeping the contents sealed, because, I assume, your device fits onto the existing lid clamps of the jerrycan and requires the lid to be open in order to attach it. A proprietory portable tank has a bayonet connection (or similar) which seals the connection on removal of the hose, or has a stopcock or valve to seal the tank before disconnection. Notwithstanding any of the above I would be looking for a system such as yours to have a written declaration from the manufacturer stating that testing had been done to ensure that the chance of fire or explosion taking place during tank changing was minimised. Given that the manufacturer of your device will almost certainly not be the same as the manufacturer of the jerrycan, I think this would be problematic. Also given that changing the jerrycan would mean completely opening the lid, there would be a high likelihood of spillage. The act of connecting such a tank might be acceptable if your delivery hose was long enough that you could connect the tank offboard. I don't think my interpretation of 5.1.2 is incorrect: "Are all components of portable fuel systems of suitable proprietory manufacture?" I would suggest the jerrycan is not, because it is designed primarily as a storage container! I hope you don't think that I'm being unnecessarily argumentative, I'm just trying to understand how such an unusual installation could meet the BSS requirements. It would be interesting to know if you had already had this passed by an examiner. If and when I come across such an arrangement as an examiner, I would like to know how I might view it.

It seems to me that BW send out notices like this to try and maximise income from selling winter moorings. I've known other boaters being bullied into paying for winter moorings on the basis that they are stuck behind a closure and can't go very far. Personally I would ignore it. If you are happy that you are not taking the p*** by overstaying long periods I can't see a problem. I have overstayed on short term moorings when there are plenty of spaces. These restrictions on mooring are more of a request than an order. BW know they have no legal basis for restricting moorings like this and would never be prepared to have it challenged in a Court. It is annoying that they waste our licence fee by sending letters out though.

I've no idea exactly how often these incidents have happened, but the fact that they are covered by the BSS means that they have happened at a significantly high rate for the BSS to have assessed them to be significant risk. If the accident stats suggest there is little or no risk then this requirement would most likely be removed. BSS do keep stats for all reported accidents and I'm sure the information is available if anyone cares to ask the question.

That would only conceivably count as a portable petrol tank whilst the device was attached, otherwise it would just be a jerrycan. Furthermore the use of a jerrycan as a portable petrol tank is likely not to comply with the BSS requirement that it has to be be of "suitable proprietory manufacture", unless it can be supported by an appropriate declaration from the manufacturer or supplier. If the means of connecting the device to the tank is the same hooks used to close the cap, I'm pretty sure it would not be acceptable as it would be easy to remove the cap without the use of tools. In my view it would fail point 5.1.2. I would be interested to know if an examiner has passed this arrangement previously. Cheers, Ian

OK, I have some observations, having just finished the BSS examiners course and having my head still full of the stuff. Firstly, the reason I was given for lagging the exhaust is that not all exhausts are remote and inaccesible. It would be impossible to have a regulation which made lagging a requirement for some installations but not others, so the obvious thing to do is make it a requirement full-stop. Secondly, lagging on a flexible pipe can actually lead to faster corrosion, by trapping moisture on relatively thin steel - of course this doesn't happen with a newer stainless flexipipe. Thirdly, people say their hospital silencers don't get very hot - maybe not, until there is a fault with the engine like a sticking valve or a buildup of carbon/oil in the silencer which ignites, whereupon it gets very hot indeed. Fourthly, the requirement in the BSS is very clear, so if you've read that and not made sure your boat complies, what can you expect? Lastly, if your boat fails on a point like this and you don't think it should, you can always appeal against the decision. Your examiner should be able to help and support you through that process. As someone else observed, an examiner who passed a boat with no lagging on the exhaust, simply hasn't applied the requirement properly - we're all human I guess. Edited to add: We had three new boats to practice examinations during the course - each and every "new" boat had multiple faults which were there from manufacture, ie, not put in for our benefit.

An interesting discussion. Regardless of any regulations applying to the transport of petrol, whilst being kept as "spare" petrol on a boat, the BSS clearly states that petrol can only be kept in a combination of the following: "2 x 10 litre metal containers marked to conform to 1929 Petroleum Spirit Regulations, 2 x 5 litre plastic containers marked to conform to 1982 Petroleum Spirit Regulations, 1 x portable petrol tank of suitable proprietary manufacture of a maximum capacity of 27 litres". This means a maximum of 30 litres in jerrycans. 20 litre jerrycans should not be used for petrol. A 20 litre jerrycan does not count as a portable petrol tank. In addition, any spare petrol must be stored in the open or in a self draining locker, where vapour cannot drain to the interior of the boat. Simples!

Someone might be looking a career change shortly!

The problem with petrol on boats is that the vapour behaves exactly the same as lpg, being heavier than air it sinks into bilges where it forms explosive mixtures with air. Even without spilling petrol when refuelling, unseen vapour is forced out of the tank as the fuel goes in. It is all to easy to flood a boat with enough vapour to blow it up. Gas is not as dangerous because it is designed to be kept in a closed system. Diesel doesn't produce explosive vapours in normal circumstances. Filling an onboard petrol tank from a jerrycan can be risky. Even if the filling arrangement diverts vapour overboard there is still a risk of static ignition from a metal jerrycan.

Nope! Single appliance - don't need anything other than the cylinder cutoff valve. However, it is good practice to have one at the appliance, not to mention convenient.

I use a liberal application of wood shavings to soak up both oil and water, and then suck it all up with a vax. I then put the resulting sludge in the log burner and use it to heat the boat.