Does this need to be bonded

[Baker1988]

Did a eicr on a upstairs flat, there is 1 main bonding cable from the consumer unit, the gas pipe comes from the gas meter outside and up the wall and straight through the loft to the other side of the flat and down to the boiler. the gas bonding goes out the db and up to the loft then across the flat next to the gas pipe and drops down to below the boiler. it is then connected to the pipe below the boiler and then cross bonded between all pipes below the boiler. there is no main water bonding but due to the cross connection below boiler i am getting a reading of 0.02 with a long lead back to the board so has a earth path. so for one the bonding is no where near connected on entry to building about 12 meters away and there is only one bond that is supplementary bonded with 10mm below boiler accross all pipes giving the water a reading and its not continuous its been cut at all clamps.

Waht do you think? im thinking a c2

 

[davesparks]

C2 for what, what is the potential danger that you have identified here?

Bonding doesn't have to be at the point of entry, though it is the ideal location. However moving it will not improve the safety of the installation.

One bonding cable can be used to connect as many extraneous parts as you like, you don't need a seperate bond for each.

There is no requirement for bonding conductors to be one continuous, uncut, length of cable.

 

[Baker1988]

C2 for what, what is the potential danger that you have identified here?

Bonding doesn't have to be at the point of entry, though it is the ideal location. However moving it will not improve the safety of the installation.

One bonding cable can be used to connect as many extraneous parts as you like, you don't need a seperate bond for each.

There is no requirement for bonding conductors to be one continuous, uncut, length of cable.

It’s not really the gas bond that I am bothered about yes it’s not within 600 of entry or any thing it’s the water bonding really. The connection to the water bonding is only through the cross bond on bottom of the boiler. I’m aware the regs don’t say it has to be continuous even though it maybe should be incase it is removed but as I say the water bonding is only connected through this cross connection and it is after many branches in the water pipe. As it come into the property it goes to the bathroom sink, toilet etc and then the kitchen sink tap then to the boiler so if any one was to change a bit of the copper pipe for something plastic before the bond then most of the water pipe entering the property would not be bonded even though it would need to be. That’s my potentially dangerous circumstance. But as I say I’m not sure that’s why I’m asking here.

 

[davesparks]

You are reporting on the installation as it is on the day you inspect it, not on what it might be if a plumber changes the pipework at some time in the future.
Potential dangers are things which have the potential to be dangerous under fault conditions, not things which may become dangerous as a result of a deliberate action by another trade.

Does the water require bonding at all?

If all the bonding connections are 10mm then it satisifies the requirement for main bonding.

At worst you could maybe argue a C3 for the location of the bonding connection to the water pipework.

With an EICR you are not assessing absolute compliance with BS7671, but the safety and suitability of the installation for continued use. As it stands it sounds like you have all pipework connected together by 10mm bonding and back to the MET, that sounds safe to me.

 

[Baker1988]

You are reporting on the installation as it is on the day you inspect it, not on what it might be if a plumber changes the pipework at some time in the future.
Potential dangers are things which have the potential to be dangerous under fault conditions, not things which may become dangerous as a result of a deliberate action by another trade.

Does the water require bonding at all?

If all the bonding connections are 10mm then it satisifies the requirement for main bonding.

At worst you could maybe argue a C3 for the location of the bonding connection to the water pipework.

With an EICR you are not assessing absolute compliance with BS7671, but the safety and suitability of the installation for continued use. As it stands it sounds like you have all pipework connected together by 10mm bonding and back to the MET, that sounds safe to me.

Hi yes it does need bonding as it is extraneous comes in from the outside wall in copper.
But I do see your point and it does make sense what you’re saying. As someone could come in and take the cover off the board which would be dangerous but like you said I can’t do nothing about someone doing deliberate/daft things. I do think I’m gonna c3 it instead as the continuity reading is fine at the water pipe where it enters the property so it is bonded and safe at the time of the report.
Thanks for the reply’s.

 

[cliffed]

There‘s been so many changes to the Regs over the last months or so… does anybody know what’s right & not.
Remembering the NICEC years gone… they always insisted on the 600mm rule & the continuous cable for MPBC .. how thing have changed mu opinion it’s all gone backwards instead of forwards.
Note: no MPBC to water intake if on entry it is plastic…. Well

 

[Vortigern]

The thing about cross bonding all the pipes at the boiler is it is redundant in that all the pipes are in a metal plate when they go into the boiler so they are cross connected in any event. Not much you can do about that except don't bother cross bonding. It seems it is one of those thing where if it is copper, bond it! Not much thought put into that bit of work really.

 

[brianmoooore]

There‘s been so many changes to the Regs over the last months or so… does anybody know what’s right & not.

Easy enough to find information online of what's been added when there's an 'upgrade' to the regs, but I've yet to find lists of what's been deleted. Even if you diligently plough through the latest copy of the regs, you may spot the new stuff, but it's much more difficult to spot what's not there any more.
When did the requirement for continuous bonding cable disappear?
I'm still probably following the odd reg from the 13th.

 

[davesparks]

When did the requirement for continuous bonding cable disappear?

Was it ever an actual regulation?

 

[cireland]

AFAIK, bonding conductors have to be continuous and within 600mm of point of entry. This is so that if a plumber does decide to change all pipework within to plastic you are still not exporting extraneous conductive parts. You should really disconnect the gas bond then test water pipes to confirm bonding present, even if you can't locate point of connection. Taking a bond from gas pipe to water is allowable as long as they are in the same crimp. This essentially makes the cable continuous.

 

[davesparks]

AFAIK, bonding conductors have to be continuous and within 600mm of point of entry.

You might want to try reading the regulations at some point.

 

[cireland]

When did that change??????????

 

[davesparks]

When did that change??????????

I don't think it has changed, as far as I can remember there hasn't been a requirement for a continuous conductor since I started my apprenticeship 20 years ago. And I'm pretty sure 600mm hasn't been much more than a suggestion in that time either.

 

[DPG]

I don't think it has changed, as far as I can remember there hasn't been a requirement for a continuous conductor since I started my apprenticeship 20 years ago. And I'm pretty sure 600mm hasn't been much more than a suggestion in that time either.

Wasn't it mentioned in the guidance note rather than the regs?

 

[davesparks]

Wasn't it mentioned in the guidance note rather than the regs?

I've got a feeling it was something made up by the NICEIC

 

[DPG]

I've got a feeling it was something made up by the NICEIC

I thought it was in GN3 at one point, but not sure.

 

[westward10]

It is in the earthing GN but not supported by a Regulation.

 

[davesparks]

It is in the earthing GN but not supported by a Regulation.

Has it ever been a regulation?

I've never seen it but I don't have a complete set of historical regs in my collection yet.

 

[westward10]

Not in the 15th but I can't go back further than that.

 

[davesparks]

Not in the 15th but I can't go back further than that.

I've checked my copy of the 14th and it says that any joints must be mechanically sound and electrically continuous, which implies that joints are allowed and a single unbroken conductor is not required.

I can't see anything in the 13th either.