eicr coding (bathroom)

[newfutile]

How would you code a bathroom with all insulated fittings , no supplementary bonding and not supplied by rcd .
The old BPG4 seemed to suggest its not required to report ,but it no longer states this in the latest BPG4

 

[mart spark]

Is the pipework an extraneous conductive part or insulated. How have you ascertained that there is no supplementary bonding? Is the pipework bonded outside of the bathroom?

 

[newfutile]

all pipework was copper as observed and would be connected via the boiler , via the gas and water both which have 10mm bonding.
at one point i used to code these as C2 but im struggling to find any danger from a pullcord and a ip65 rated class 2 fiting on the celing.

 

[mart spark]

all pipework was copper as observed and would be connected via the boiler , via the gas and water both which have 10mm bonding.
at one point i used to code these as C2 but im struggling to find any danger from a pullcord and a ip65 rated class 2 fiting on the celing.

Ah ok.But if the piping has insulated sections between these points or before all accessible pipework in the bathroom they wouldn't have continuity and if it was insulated inside the bathroom before accessibility they wouldn't necessarily be extraneous. But I'm sure that's been checked. Also if none of the above applied but the continuity between the cpc of the fittings and the extraneous conductive parts had a low enough impedance to allow the protective device to disconnect in the correct time , then it could be assumed that there is supplementary bonding, just a thought.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I think this is technically a C3 where simultaneously accessible (701.415.2 does mention class II's), but I doubt I'd code it as I probably wouldn't be looking for it as part of an EICR. Like you say, it's hard to see what danger it poses in its current state.