Paloma/Marco Water Heaters

[Grumpy Bear]

Hi,

Our Paloma water heater packed up and we decided to replace it with a new Morco heater (I think Morco have taken over Poloma).

 

When the fitter came to fit it (also a BSS Examiner) he indicated that the flue would have to be moved because it is not 500mm (20ins) from the hatch. However, the BSS Guide at Part 8, para 8.8 says that the distances are only RECOMMENDED as below. The fitter says they are mandatory. The paragraph says:

 

"To minimise the risk of flue gases re-entering a boat it’s recommended that flue

terminals and air inlets are not positioned within 500mm (20ins) of ventilators,

opening ports, hatches, or windows. There is also a risk that flammable vapours

could be drawn down into an appliance and for this reason the same separation

of flue terminals/air inlets from re-fuelling fittings or fuel tank vent outlets is

recommended."

 

So what is the answer? Do we have to move the flue which will be somewhat expensive. All comments welcome.

 

Mike

[Richard Bustens]

How far from it is it ?

If it is a recommendation it should not fail for that, but if it is only 2-3 inches i would look at it, but you could get round it by increasing the hight of the exhaust.

 

My solid fuel fire chimney is only 2 inches from the rear hatch on the boatman's cab and i think most will be, but it has a 24'' chimney on it.

Edited June 30, 2005 by Richard Bustens

[paranoidmarvin]

We discussed this subject with Nigel Carton a few weeks back - hopefully he'll be able to post a definitive response but I seem to recall the conversations as being "more concerned with testing the outlet of the Paloma with a smoke match to ensure that there is adequate venting"

[Grumpy Bear]

Thanks for the prompt reply. Not sure of the exact distance of the flue from the hatch as I am not on the boat at the moment. However, looking at the Checklist in Part 8 of the Guide - for the examiner to tick presumably - at 8.8 we have

 

flue terminal/air inlet positioned at least 500mm from specified locations (in italics)

 

and below is the note:

 

Check List items in italic are Advisory

 

which reinforces the point in the main Part 8 para that the distances are recommended does it not?

 

Mike

[Richard Bustens]

is that all he has failed it on or are they other things as well?

 

If it is listed as advisory then it should not fail for that, but i dont know what you can do about it.

[Grumpy Bear]

No, the Boat has not failed the BSS. It is not due.

 

The Poloma water heater died and we decided to replace it with a new one. The fitter who came to fit the new one (a Morco) is also a BSS examiner (as it happens). It was he who looked at the installation and said that if he fitted a new Marco it would count as a new installation and therefore he would have to move the flue to comply with the BSS. This would not be cheap.

 

I think he is trying it on.

 

Mike

[Richard Bustens]

So do i GB i would get someone else to give you a price and see what they say,

[David]

Just been on the BSS site and it definately says "recommended", email the question to the BSS site and get the answer from the horses mouth, then you have the answer for your fitter/examiner.

Of course he may be advising but not explaining properly "why not move it to accord with the recommendations while having the new one fitted".

David

[Richard Bustens]

The other point is that if it is recommended it is for a reason, do you conceder it may be a hazard and money worth spending.

 

It could also be that the fitters company insist that all work they carry out is done to BSS speck to stop come back next year when your wife tries to sue them for your death from carbon monoxide poisoning from a flue they have fitted in the wrong place

Edited June 30, 2005 by Richard Bustens

[Grumpy Bear]

Many thanks for the helpful comments.

 

I absolutely agree that the recommendations are there for a reason, and we don't want to get poisoned. But the existing Poloma/flue has been fitted since the boat was built some 12 years ago, and it has gone through 3 BSS inspections without a mention of the flue position. (The most recent being 18 months ago). I expect that moving the flue would require another hole to be cut in the roof, and the existing hole covered over by some method.

 

I think I just got upset by the attitude of the guy who produced a BSS inspection check sheet dated 1999 (and thus well out of date) stating that the dimensions were mandatory and I had no choice.

 

As you quite rightly say, a different approach might have had a different result, but I did not get a warm feeling that the chap was not trying it on.

 

Thanks for the comments, much appreciated - and a great forum I have discovered. I will view it now with great interest.

 

Regards

 

Mike

[Richard Bustens]

Glad we may have been some help.

Welcome to the forum and please let us know the outcome.

[Alan Saunders]

. . . I think I just got upset by the attitude of the guy who produced a BSS inspection check sheet dated 1999 (and thus well out of date) stating that the dimensions were mandatory and I had no choice. 

 

As you quite rightly say, a different approach might have had a different result, but I did not get a warm feeling that the chap was not trying it on . . .

24648[/snapback]

I have found myself in a similar position but not in connection with boats or gas. I could not carry out an installation which might result in injury or death. Still, there are undoubtedly 'cowboys' who will try to generate work or even excessive charges.

 

If you bought the Morco elsewhere and asked a qualified engineer to install it then it may be difficult to tell. If on the other hand he refused to sell you an appliance that was to be unsafely, in his opinion, installed the position is clear!

 

Accepting that there are 'lies, damned lies and statistics' those regulations and recommendations are there for a reason, it really depends on the level of risk that you are prepared to take. My boat has passed the test since the original Certificate of Compliance in 199? But on succeeding examinations the requirements have changed. Originally the Electrolux 'fridge was vented into the cabin which had 6 square inches of low level ventilation, we never had a problem with this arrangement. Eventually the 'fridge was vented outside and there is 20 square inches of low level ventilation (for the cooker, not the 'fridge). My mother-in-law slept in the front cabin and complained of a severe headache - she had closed the two front hopper windows which we always have open.

 

I guess that through my lack of care my mother-in-law may have died - is that a risk worth taking for a canal holiday?

 

Alan

[Rob@BSSOffice]

Many thanks for the helpful comments.

I think I just got upset by the attitude of the guy who produced a BSS inspection check sheet dated 1999 (and thus well out of date) stating that the dimensions were mandatory and I had no choice. 

Mike

24648[/snapback]

 

Mike,

I am more than a little surprised at this part of your account and would welcome private correspondence/phone call on this matter.

 

However to set the record straight:

Issues that affect the safety of the first party only ie carbon monoxide poisoning are ones where the BSS issues advice only. There is good reason for the advice etc already discussed here on this thread, but a strong recommendation is its status.

 

However, this is not the complete end of the story. it may go beyond BSS matters. In this case this fitter was not doing work in the name of the Scheme. In generalterms therefore, a competent fitter may make the choice not to carry out works where someone could be at risk from CO poisoning (especially if they are CORGI registered). Any fitter carrying out works that could harm people may be risking a legal admonishment and/or investigation by CORGI, if registered. Indeed competent fitters would probably be expected to keep with the letter of BS 5482-3 or ISO 10239.

That may be the real reason - although communicated in way that left you thinking it was a BSS requirement.

 

NB - Any technical questions as to the requirements of the Scheme are more than welcome at BSS Office. We will glady help iron out any such queries like the original one at the top of the topic. Direct to bss.enquiries@boatsafetyscheme.com or phone 01923 201278.

 

PS I am also happy to send by post or email a copy of our Avoiding the silent threat- Carbon Monoxide leaflet.

 

Regards

Rob @ BSSOffice

Go boating - Stay safe