New CU but no water bonding...

[jaydub]

Someone has asked for an upgrade to their consumer unit but they have no water bonding. I explained this and said it needs to be done but it's quite a job and they don't want it done, just the CU upgraded?

What's the crack with that?

Can you crack on and put it down as a departure from bs7671?

 

[polo1]

Is the incoming water supply definitely an extraneous conductive part?
I won't do a cu changeover where bonding is required & the customer won't agree to it being done.
PS you can't note it as a departure.

 

[Des 56]

Before any addition or alteration is carried out blah blah

 

[Pete999]

Someone has asked for an upgrade to their consumer unit but they have no water bonding. I explained this and said it needs to be done but it's quite a job and they don't want it done, just the CU upgraded?

What's the crack with that?

Can you crack on and put it down as a departure from bs7671?

Or walk away, safety should have no cost if they wont pay walk away.

 

[Octopus]

So the IET come out with regs, make no attempt to publicise the regs and leaves the poor sparks to educate the public.

This is not acceptable.

So, our responsibility is to make sites safer and, as such, updating a cu to one with. MCB's and RCD's is making the site safer.

Tin hat on

Just saying..

Ps. None of the CPS make any attempt, that I am aware of to educate Joe public either.

My advice to the op is to provide a written quote with the cu and bonding update ... Then see what happens.....

 

[Midwest]

Even if the service is plastic, internal water metal pipes might have to be bonded.

 

[jaydub]

Thanks everyone, just a situation I have not yet come across.

Can anyone give me an example of when you might use the departures section? Just out of interest really. Again, never used it or seen it used!

 

[Ian1981]

Even if the service is plastic, internal water metal pipes might have to be bonded.

If internal water pipes with plastic incoming service can't introduce a potential (earth potential that is) and can be considered non extraneous parts then I don't see why they need bonding

 

[Midwest]

If internal water pipes can't introduce a potential (earth potential that is) and can be considered non extraneous parts then I don't see why they need bonding

Reg 528.3.4.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

The departures section would only be used where a departure from Bs7671 could be justified,
so in the real world virtually never unless the signatory is prepared to take to consequences if the known departure goes ---- up.

 

[telectrix]

sometimes you canfind a cold water pipe in an easier location to bond. in that case, it could be noted as a departure, as long as a R2 test confirmed that said bond had an acceptable resistance to the pipe where you'd have liked to bond ( i.e. close to the point of entry ).i done that with the gas here. as the main gas pipe passess next to the CU. the entry point is 10yards away in the attached garage.

 

[Ian1981]

Reg 528.3.4.

Confused what's that got to do with protective bonding ?

 

[telectrix]

Confused what's that got to do with protective bonding ?

bugger all. afaik, can't be arsed to look it up, but ain't it the proximity of services reg.?

 

[Ian1981]

bugger all. afaik, can't be arsed to look it up, but ain't it the proximity of services reg.?

Correct

 

[Wilko]

I think departure example would be design engineer had specified some bit of kit that was not BS XYZ but had certified that it was equivalent or better than the required BS.

 

[westward10]

I estimate 45 posts on this.

 

[Midwest]

Reg 528.3.4

ii) Fault protection shall be afforded in accordance with the requirements of section 411.

If I'm completely off target, please feel free to tell me, I'm here to learn. As far as I'm aware, if you can't guarantee you electrical services, are not in close proximity with other services, section 411 applies?

 

[Ian1981]

Reg 528.3.4

ii) Fault protection shall be afforded in accordance with the requirements of section 411.

If I'm completely off target, please feel free to tell me, I'm here to learn. As far as I'm aware, if you can't guarantee you electrical services, are not in close proximity with other services, section 411 applies?

Yes but that's nothing to do with main protective bonding of extraneous parts :mtongue: although it is part of ADS
Chapter 54 deals with protective bonding

 

[telectrix]

regs. book stays in desk drawer after beer o'clock.

 

[westward10]

I don't have a set of Regs.

 

[telectrix]

sell you one. 15th edition. £500.make cheque out to "Campaign for Action on Shire Horses". bit long, that, so just use the initials ...C.A.S.H.

 

[Midwest]

Yes but that's nothing to do with main protective bonding of extraneous parts :mtongue: although it is part of ADS

Except main protective bonding of extraneous parts is in sec 411. This could go on all night, but suffice to say those with more intelligence than me, have bonded metal internal with plastic service. I'll just follow their lead.

 

[westward10]

Just seen an ECA survey which states only 6% of businesses surveyed are in full support of the 18th Ed changes, I could have saved them a lot of time and money with that.

 

[telectrix]

Except main protective bonding of extraneous parts is in sec 411. This could go on all night, but suffice to say those with more intelligence than me, have bonded metal internal with plastic service. I'll just follow their lead.

thought them wet-pants stopped using lead.

 

[Ian1981]

Yes but that's nothing to do with main protective bonding of extraneous parts :mtongue: although it is part of ADS

Except main protective bonding of extraneous parts is in sec 411. This could go on all night, but suffice to say those with more intelligence than me, have bonded metal internal with plastic service. I'll just follow their lead.

i would say bonding a piece of metal not extraneous could introduce a shock hazard (during fault conditions in the installation) which might never have been there because it wasn't needed such as isolated from earth metal work

 

[telectrix]

i would say bonding a piece of metal not extraneous could introduce a shock hazard which might never have been there because it wasn't needed such as isolated from earth metal work

that's why any metalwork should be tested to determine if it's extraneous. 22kΩ

 

[Ian1981]

If you ever read they magazine professional electrician the NICEIC did an article about it but can't remember what month it was.
That's if anyone trusts the NICEIC view

 

[Ian1981]

that's why any metalwork should be tested to determine if it's extraneous. 22kΩ

Think this is supposed to be made more clear in the 18th edition
On the DPC it has a sentence along the lines of if there's an insulated insert before entering the property then no bonding is required

 

[westward10]

Might have to up my estimate to 145 posts at this rate.

 

[snowhead]

Might have to up my estimate to 145 posts at this rate.

That'll be a Departure then?

 

[Midwest]

Might have to up my estimate to 145 posts at this rate.

Your obviously poised to make a definitive statement.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

I realise the OSG is just a guide but it does state in section 4.5 (the green one) that there is no requirement for Main bonding if the incoming service is in plastic.
If there is metal installation within the premises (and plastic incoming) it suggests there should still be Main bonding unless the metal work doesn't test as extraneous.

 

[Dave OCD]

I'd make a wild estimate of 33 posts on this subject by say around 7.16pm

 

[telectrix]

I'd make a wild estimate of 33 posts on this subject by say around 7.16pm

Smart Arse.

 

[Midwest]

As an aside, if you don't bond the metal pipe work (after plastic), you'll probably or may have to supplementary bond incoming metal pipes into special locations, perhaps

 

[Ian1981]

As an aside, if you don't bond the metal pipe work (after plastic), you'll probably or may have to supplementary bond incoming metal pipes into special locations, perhaps

if the pipework entering the bathroom is not extraneous and all circuits meet their requirement for disconnect times and rcd protected they would be no need to supplementary bond pipes anyway

 

[Midwest]

Protective bonding works with protection a

if the pipework entering the bathroom is not extraneous and all circuits meet their requirement for disconnect times and rcd protected they would be no need to supplementary bond pipes anyway

You type quick, were you poised with a reply

 

[Ian1981]

You type quick, were you poised with a reply

I'm down with the kids when it comes to this mobile texting lark!

 

[Midwest]

if the pipework entering the bathroom is not extraneous and all circuits meet their requirement for disconnect times and rcd protected they would be no need to supplementary bond pipes anyway

Forgetting ancillary earthing, boilers etc. How likely are those pipes effectively be bonded to earth? I would suggest, apart from following like sheep, that's the most cost effective way of following reg 528.3.4 that most installs I've seen, seem to follow?

 

[Ian1981]

Forgetting ancillary earthing, boilers etc. How likely are those pipes effectively be bonded to earth? I would suggest, apart from following like sheep, that's the most cost effective way of following reg 528.3.4 that most installs I've seen, seem to follow?

A measurement can be made to verify the effectiveness of the pipework connected to a main protective bonding conductor

where doubt exists regarding the effectiveness of supplementary equipotential bonding, it shall be confirmed that the resistance R between simulataneously accessible exposed-conductive-parts and extraneous-conductive-parts fufils the following condition

R =<50 V/Ia in a.c systems
Or
R=<50v/IdeltaN for rcds

 

[Jay Sparks]

Whilst I agree that if the water enters the building in plastic, then it probably doesn't require bonding, however, if the water pipe goes to a boiler, it may then become extraneous if the incoming gas enters in metal. As most boilers use a metal manifold that will ultimately bring the water pipes to the same potential as the gas pipes. The only real way is to test the incoming pipes.

Jay

 

[johnduffell]

Whilst I agree that if the water enters the building in plastic, then it probably doesn't require bonding, however, if the water pipe goes to a boiler, it may then become extraneous if the incoming gas enters in metal. As most boilers use a metal manifold that will ultimately bring the water pipes to the same potential as the gas pipes. The only real way is to test the incoming pipes.

Jay

Something can't become extraneous just because it's connected to something else that is. It's the gas pipe that introduces the potential, so that's the extraneous part.
Unless you're referring to a situation where the boiler is in an outhouse or similar, in which case each metal pipe that goes to or from the boiler could individually be an ecp where it enters the building.

 

[Midwest]

In a scenario where a plastic water service pipe enters an installation, it is clearly not fit the definition of extraneous conductive part. Similar, the continuation of the service into the property , again in plastic would not be consider extraneous. When a plastic service enters a property, and continues on in metal, then a test could be made to establish if it was extraneous.

However, (I have read and been previously advised) that to conduct that test correctly, all cpc's and other possible parallel paths (like bonded gas pipes to boilers e.g.) would have to be negated, to obtain a true reading, i.e. if those cpc/bonds were removed at a later date. It is also possible, the internal service could be altered, and could be come extraneous.

Which is possibly why I seen very large numbers of plastic services, with their metal internal bonded, or is it a habit out of nature (following like sheep). Its easier to install bonding, rather than retrospectively add it, perhaps. In fact, I have always seen such bonding in place. I note that the OSG recommends bonding of metal services, after plastic, unless it has been confirmed its not introducing earth potential.

However, my previous post was not about main protective bonding, but the application of reg 528.3.4, which will require further reading and seeking guidance. Thoughts?

Sorry Tel, that's 5.

 

[telectrix]

no it's not. the last line don't count.

 

[Midwest]

no it's not. the last line don't count.

The last paragraph of my last holiday, with snaps included, was omitted for clarity.

 

[Midwest]

In a scenario where a plastic water service pipe enters an installation, it is clearly not fit the definition of extraneous conductive part. Similar, the continuation of the service into the property , again in plastic would not be consider extraneous. When a plastic service enters a property, and continues on in metal, then a test could be made to establish if it was extraneous.

However, (I have read and been previously advised) that to conduct that test correctly, all cpc's and other possible parallel paths (like bonded gas pipes to boilers e.g.) would have to be negated, to obtain a true reading, i.e. if those cpc/bonds were removed at a later date. It is also possible, the internal service could be altered, and could be come extraneous.

Which is possibly why I seen very large numbers of plastic services, with their metal internal bonded, or is it a habit out of nature (following like sheep). Its easier to install bonding, rather than retrospectively add it, perhaps. In fact, I have always seen such bonding in place. I note that the OSG recommends bonding of metal services, after plastic, unless it has been confirmed its not introducing earth potential.

However, my previous post was not about main protective bonding, but the application of reg 528.3.4, which will require further reading and seeking guidance. Thoughts?

Sorry Tel, that's 5.

Has the topic lost its flavour on the bed post overnight?

 

[westward10]

I predicted 45 posts on this now you have spoiled it

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Well I'm going to guess at 47!

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Doh!! 48!

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Doh!!!! 49!!