Biomass training

[BruceB]

Not PV, but I thought some of you might be interested in my experience of Biomass training (HETAS H005BR and H005) this week. In doing courses for PV ST and HP working at height etc, I have generally thought they spread stuff out to fill the time available and that I could have covered most of it myself in a fraction of the time if they sent me the powerpoint slides. They were pretty much 'attendance' courses, any tests at the end being trivial.

The Biomass training was different in that they were seriously trying to ensure we got the information firmly into our heads so that we did not asphyxiate anyone or burn anything down. There were two 1hr 15 min written papers at the end, one multiple choice, one written answers. The pass mark was 100%.

For the first paper of 35 questions you had to score 76% on your first run through in order to then get a second go at the questions you got wrong. You then had to get in the 90% area to be allowed a final oral discussion to prove you understood it if you still had any wrong. All that was contained within the 1hr 15 mins.

For the second paper there were 11 written questions and you had to get 9 correct in order to be allowed a second attempt to get them all right.

There was also a practical element where you had to show you knew enough about biomass boilers to go to a random one, take it apart and service it without first having seen any detailed instructions on that particular model.

As the cousins would say, you had to 'get with the program'

Not rocket science, but you could not afford to doze through anything. I think the attendees will all feel they earned their certificates!

 

[sambotc]

Windhager Chippenham?

 

[BruceB]

indeed

 

[sambotc]

Yes very good course, was it led by mick aka solid fuel man?

shame the wind have products are so expensive

 

[BruceB]

Yes is was led by him with his son doing the first day. He certainly has a lot of experience and knows his stuff. If I was going to argue with anything it would be that they were a little pedantic on the authority of what was said in Approved Document J. That is 'one way' of meeting the requirements. Once we get to 1 Jul 13 when the EU Construction Products Regulation comes into force and things have to be 'CE' marked, then if a manufacturer says something is tested, passed and CE marked then that should be good enough. We could end up seeing some of the continental standards used in UK if I understand the situation correctly. Rightly or wrongly they seem more relaxed on some matters like chimneys, hearths andf fresh air bricks with mvhr.

 

[sambotc]

I understood the building regulations to be a legal requirement and as such have to be adhered to, unlike British standards and alike which are best practice or guidelines?

 

[BruceB]

The regulations are a legal requirement. J1 -J5 on page 9 here
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_AD_J_2010_V2.pdf
are the requirements specified by the regulations. The rest of the approved document is guidance on how to meet the requirements. If you follow the guidance it is assumed you meet the requirements of the regulations. It is open to manufacturers to design and test products which might meet the requirements in a different way from that specified in the guidance.

There are a lot of interacting regulations and standards in this area.

 

[sambotc]

I understand what you are saying, but should a problem arise from an installation you install, if it went to court there would be questions as to why you decided not to follow guidance. You wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Manufacturers spend the money to test, but also take on the responsibilities if anything were to go wrong following their installation procedures?

technically you are right, but I can't see why anyone would want to deviate from the guidance, other than when following manufacturers instruction. We always say the manufacturers instructions over rule.

 

[BruceB]

What I gathered from the week was:
-the solid fuel community think that gas fitters are taught that manufacturers instructions have priority always.
- the solid fuel community are taught that the guidance in ADJ overrides any less stringent manufacturers requirement.

What I am speculating is that when the rules change in July then from the Europeans perspective we will no longer be able to block some of their products and installation methods that do not quite meet the guidance in ADJ but they have tested their products and proved them safe and had them in use for years in Europe and would argue that they meet the requirements (as opposed to the guidance).

An example would be a wood burning stove with a direct external air supply in a house with MVHR and low air leakage. The solid fuel community insist that an air brick to outside is still required under ADJ. I know of examples where BCOs have been happy that an air brick was unnecessary where MVHR is providing air into the room and that is how it has been done in many countries abroad. I accept that ADJ guidance still says put in an air brick but I expect that will change in due course.