Opinions on code please

[Deleted member 9648]

Doing an EICR on a sports pavillion built in the late 80's. There are several communal wet rooms each served by 2x 3ph shower heaters.The heaters are in cupboards outside the changing areas,a copper pipe goes through the wall and runs through the shower area surface to 3x heads. Each wet room has 6 heads in total so there are two pipes fed from 2 different heaters simutaneously accessible. No RCD protection is in place as it wasnt a requirement when originally installed,and no supplementary bonding either.The only 'conductive parts' in the area is a flu at high level which is a corrosive proof so totally enclosed and outside any zones,so there are no exposed conductive parts accessible to extraneous conductive parts. My concern is that the two pipes feeding the shower heads are from two different sources and so a fault on one of the heaters could result in a PD between the two sets of shower heads without supplementary bonding in place. That said a continuity test in all of the wet rooms gave a <0.05 ohms reading between the two sets of pipes.
Initially I thought a code 2.....but that indicates a potential danger,given the continuity readings as it stands there cant be a PD and in effect they are bonded so no danger!
Would you code it...and what code?...2=potential danger even though there isnt?....or 3= doesnt comply but no danger?
Not interested in what should be done about it....just what code.

 

[KAS1]

I'll stick my neck out and say C3 to start the ball rolling.............

- - - Updated - - -

just for the RCD's

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I'll stick my neck out and say C3 to start the ball rolling.............

- - - Updated - - -

just for the RCD's

Well the lack of RCD is a separate issue really,as there is none technically there should be visible supp bonding in place.

 

[Adam W]

If you were to recommend the addition of supplementary bonding (ie code it because there isn't any), wouldn't that just be bringing it up to a previous version of BS7671?
IIRC the option to omit supplementary bonding if <0.05Ω is met only came in with the 17th, provided disconnection were provided via an rcd (which it hasn't got).
I don't think the lack of rcd protection is a separate issue; maybe C2 for lack of RCD, ie there's not proper fault protection under either edition?
In short, fitting an RCD will sort it, but it's more urgent than usual.

 

[D Skelton]

C3 for lack of RCD protection. Supplementary bonding is a non issue IMHO as the resistance between pipes couldn't be better even if bonded.

 

[Guest55]

C3 for no rcds as the electrical components of the water heaters and the supply to them are outside the shower locations.
C3 for lack of supp bonding , considering the low res between parts.

 

[D Skelton]

C3 for lack of supp bonding , considering the low res between parts.

Why a C3?

0.05ohms is definitely gonna be lower than 50/In so supp bonding is not needed. I'm curious as to why you would code it?

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Why a C3?

0.05ohms is definitely gonna be lower than 50/In so supp bonding is not needed. I'm curious as to why you would code it?[/QUOTE

I'd code it as well....701.415.2 clearly states that 3 conditions need to be met in order to omit SB...in this case only two conditions are met,that the ECP's are effectively connected to protective bonding,and disconnection times are met(albeit without an RCD),the only issue for me is whether a code 2 or 3 is warrented for the lack of actual SB. As for lack of RCD this would be a code 3 as it was not required at the time of installation.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

If you were to recommend the addition of supplementary bonding (ie code it because there isn't any), wouldn't that just be bringing it up to a previous version of BS7671?
IIRC the option to omit supplementary bonding if <0.05Ω is met only came in with the 17th, provided disconnection were provided via an rcd (which it hasn't got).
I don't think the lack of rcd protection is a separate issue; maybe C2 for lack of RCD, ie there's not proper fault protection under either edition?
In short, fitting an RCD will sort it, but it's more urgent than usual.

At the moment I'm only concerned with applying the right code....but fitting RCD protection would be a pain. There are 8 showers on 8 TP mcb's,in a 12 way board....only practical way would be an upfront TPN RCD on the tails to the board....50mm tails 160a supply....not gonna happen.

 

[D Skelton]

I'd code it as well....701.415.2 clearly states that 3 conditions need to be met in order to omit SB...in this case only two conditions are met,that the ECP's are effectively connected to protective bonding,and disconnection times are met(albeit without an RCD),the only issue for me is whether a code 2 or 3 is warrented for the lack of actual SB. As for lack of RCD this would be a code 3 as it was not required at the time of installation.

2 conditions have been met: the requirements for ADS and efficient connection to earth, the last is the absence of an RCD which is the one requirement that hasn't been met, therefore in my mind it is only the absence of an RCD that requires a code as adding one kills two birds with one stone.

Where I was going with the 0.05 ohms is a reasonable assumption that the pipes are supplementary bonded or as good as, worst case scenario a seperate C3 but personally, I wouldn't code it.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Thanks chaps.....think as it stands I'll code both RCD and SB a 3,with an explanatory note on the continuity to cover my ---.

 

[Guest55]

Why a C3?

0.05ohms is definitely gonna be lower than 50/In so supp bonding is not needed. I'm curious as to why you would code it?

because 544.2 asks for it regardless of the resistance between the parts.

 

[D Skelton]

because 544.2 asks for it regardless of the resistance between the parts.

But the addition of an RCD would negate any need for supp bonding in this instance. That's my take on it anyway, as I've said, I'd code the lack of RCD and that's it. It's an interesting one and just goes to show how subjective these things can be.

 

[Guest55]

no worries , no inspection ever yields the same outcome

couple of pipe clamps and some green / yellow in the heater cupboard will fix it in 5 mins.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

no worries , no inspection ever yields the same outcome

couple of pipe clamps and some green / yellow in the heater cupboard will fix it in 5 mins.

lol....bit more than 5 minutes,the heaters for each wet room are in 2 separate cupboards,one at each end.....but thats not my issue,I've just gotta code it.

 

[somersetsparks]

Do the shower units even specifically need rcd protection as they are outside the 'room containing a bath/shower'. IMO would it not be the same to say that an immersion needed RCD protection because it fed a shower head? BTW I'm not sure just debating

 

[Farmelectrics]

c3 but id bond pipes