Unable to find earth rod when doing EICR

[Deuce]

Do we all accept that an EICR is a report on the condition of an installation at the time of the Inspection and Testing?

Can anyone explain why either the water pipe or gas pipe would be used as an electrode, and then bonded?

Is 63Ohms a good or bad reading for an earth electrode?
Does it indicate any instability?

Finally, who believes that the outcome of the Further Investigation would lead to a code C1 or C2?

I see where you're going.

I would argue that the condition of an installation goes beyond just testing though. I could test something with a cracked case and hanging off the wall and still get a pass result. Who knows what state the electrode is in? If it's still even there and/or connected suitably.

And in any case, just because you're called out to issue an EICR doesn't mean that upon arrival you can't identify a problem worth addressing ahead of doing the EICR. It's not all about technically not doing anything wrong, it's about doing the right thing out of care for your customer too.

The outcome of further investigation would likely not result in C1 or 2. I fully expect that if the obstruction was removed the conductor would be revealed, connected soundly to a suitable electrode. But that's not the point. The point is that there is a chance it's not OK, and it's a chance the OP doesn't need to take.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It is the point though.
FI should be used for instances where it is suspected either a code C1 or C2 is present, but cannot be discovered for whatever reason.

This is copied from the notes on the 18th edition EICR model form:

“Where an observation requires further investigation (FI) because the inspection has revealed an apparent deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the code FI and marked as unsatisfactory in Section E.”

 

[Deuce]

It is the point though.
FI should be used for instances where it is suspected either a code C1 or C2 is present, but cannot be discovered for whatever reason.

This is copied from the notes on the 18th edition EICR model form:

“Where an observation requires further investigation (FI) because the inspection has revealed an apparent deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the code FI and marked as unsatisfactory in Section E.”

Ok that's correct. I'm not saying there is cause to suspect a C1/C2. I am saying that if a critical part of the installation is inaccessible for visual inspection/maintenance, then that is a problem to fix ahead of testing.

The OP asked what code to use, and fair enough - there is no evidence to suspect it's unsafe. But there is also no evidence to conclusively prove it is safe. Safety would require both acceptable test results and also knowledge that what you're testing actually exists and exists in a state that can be expected to remain stable until the next test. So that for me is the first hurdle to jump: Fix the fact its inaccessible. In this case, a new rod.

I feel we're debating technicalities when we must all surely know that the connection in question shouldn't be hidden beneath a block of immovable concrete

 

[Ian1981]

If you don’t suspect a C1 or C2 code then you can’t possibly code something FI as by doing so you as the inspector suspect a potential danger is present but due to limitations you can’t see it.
If people give an FI for this then they must do when they can’t see a protective bonding conductor at the connected end of the gas or water but having confirmed the service has a low resistance to earth.
C3 for me

 

[HappyHippyDad]

I know it's hindsight now, but you can always confirm bonding conductors with them disconnected using long lead test if unsure.

I think it just down to your judgement. As Ze is very acceptable, I would say either FI or LIM are perfectly reasonable.

Out of interest what sort of Zs's were you getting with bonds reconnected?

Zs's were around 8 ohms.

 

[markc123]

It is the point though.
FI should be used for instances where it is suspected either a code C1 or C2 is present, but cannot be discovered for whatever reason.
I’m amazed you’re saying this. It’s funny how IET wording can be interpreted. I fully understand the above point, but, stripping it back Further Investigation means exactly what it says on the tin to me, never mind what the ends of bells think who type all this carp up in an office stating it has to be used when a C1 or C2 is suspected.

Further Investigation means further investigation and this in my opinion warrants it. It’s not difficult to put a fresh accessible rod in and nor is it costly

“be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the code FI and marked as unsatisfactory

I’ve taken a few lines out of the quote you have given from the book. That to me means FI and unsatisfactory IF the client is unwilling to add a fresh rod OR allow the actual further investigation which would lead to revealing the true identity, Condition and suitability of the Rod.

I stand by what I’ve always been taught and that is a Rod must be accessible for testing and maintenance.

I love debates like this, makes our trade interesting.

 

[markc123]

It is the point though.
FI should be used for instances where it is suspected either a code C1 or C2 is present, but cannot be discovered for whatever reason.
I’m amazed you’re saying this. It’s funny how IET wording can be interpreted. I fully understand the above point, but, stripping it back Further Investigation means exactly what it says on the tin to me, never mind what the ends of bells think who type all this carp up in an office stating it has to be used when a C1 or C2 is suspected.

Further Investigation means further investigation and this in my opinion warrants it. It’s not difficult to put a fresh accessible rod in and nor is it costly

“be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the code FI and marked as unsatisfactory

I’ve taken a few lines out of the quote you have given from the book. That to me means FI and unsatisfactory IF the client is unwilling to add a fresh rod OR allow the actual further investigation which would lead to revealing the true identity, Condition and suitability of the Rod.

I stand by what I’ve always been taught and that is a Rod must be accessible for testing and maintenance.

I love debates like this, makes our trade interesting.

 

[telectrix]

I’ve taken a few lines out of the quote you have given from the book. That to me means FI and unsatisfactory IF the client is unwilling to add a fresh rod OR allow the actual further investigation which would lead to revealing the true identity, Condition and suitability of the Rod.

I stand by what I’ve always been taught and that is a Rod must be accessible for testing and maintenance.

I love debates like this, makes our trade interesting.

i agreed with the previous post, but sod it. not bothering with the duplicate. too much effort. .

 

[KevinH]

Would have to agree with wirepuller's comments.
Could be anything on the end of that earth cable.....or nothing!

 

[Nigel]

Because for reasons laid out it could be testing fine today, and under different circumstances it would fail.

No one knows what it's connected too nor the condition of it. Just because it's technically passed doesn't mean it's common sense to make assumptions about it's actual suitability or safety. That's over reliance on testing imo.

Perhaps a better approach: If you don't know what you're testing, solve that problem first. Then test.

You cannot see the cables in the wall but we do not assume thay are wrong unless proved by testing.

No different here.

 

[KevinH]

This is true Essex, but we can normally check what's on the end of the cable right?

 

[Deuce]

You cannot see the cables in the wall but we do not assume thay are wrong unless proved by testing.

No different here.

It's totally different. You know it's a cable, you can easily access at least one end of it. You can identify the cable type and check it's suitable. Even if technically a length of cable is hidden between two concealed boxes on a circuit, you can still check that it exists by testing what you can access.

It is however possible the electrode does not exist, or is not connected. That cannot be confidently revealed by testing alone.

 

[markc123]

You cannot see the cables in the wall but we do not assume thay are wrong unless proved by testing.

No different here.

It absolutley is different.

Fault on circuits - breakers trip.

Main earth not stable - zs’s not stable - potentially for MCBS not to trip under fault conditions.

Can’t compare the main earth to circuits IMO. The problem with the main earth is that once it’s failed it could be too late and there isn’t any warning.

The main earth needs to be accessible for maintenance and testing. Period.

 

[Deuce]

It absolutley is different.

Fault on circuits - breakers trip.

Main earth not stable - zs’s not stable - potentially for MCBS not to trip under fault conditions.

Can’t compare the main earth to circuits IMO. The problem with the main earth is that once it’s failed it could be too late and there isn’t any warning.

The main earth needs to be accessible for maintenance and testing. Period.

That's another angle that keeps being skipped as people try to compare this to other situations.

This isn't a protected component... it IS the protection. We can all appreciate that houses get pulled around and often access to certain parts of the electrical installation are a nightmare, sometimes it's simply more practical to go on the weight of evidence, testing, and in the end to assume something is fine and there is no need for further investigation. But if you get ONE thing right, absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt. Get the earthing of the entire house right.

Question I suppose... Would you bet your life the electrode is present, correct and suitably attached? I wouldn't so I certainly wouldn't bet the life of my customer. I would bet £1000 it's all there, maybe more - I would almost certainly make a tidy return on that bet

But not a life. That's my stance.

 

[KevinH]

Helluva speech deuce, I reckon that sums up the answer to this thread!

 

[Deuce]

Helluva speech deuce, I reckon that sums up the answer to this thread!

Thanks

To be fair, I think a lot of folk want to argue specific technical points on these forums - which is fine, I do it too.

But on this occasion I can't accept there is any correct resolution other than starting by sinking a new rod. Any other debate about how to correctly evaluate the current situation is secondary to me. And I'm wondering why the OP hasn't come back yet to say they have had that conversation with the customer.

 

[Ian1981]

So if there’s a 10mm connected in the dB say for the protective bonding conductor to the gas but you can’t confirm the connection at the gas end where it’s connected (built in to the fabric of the building), you do a R2 test on the pipework with all parallel paths disconnected as far as reasonably practicable, you get a reading of say 0.03 ohms, do you FI the fact you can’t see the connection for inspection and testing purposes?
Bare in mind that all though it’s not the principle form of earthing to the installation it’s importance that the bonding is present and connected is paramount for ADS.

 

[KevinH]

Personally I would FI any bonding incoming gas/water pipes if connection not visible/accessible to be able to remove and get an R2 to confirm. Otherwise what's to say the 10mm from board is connected to the pipe at all? and that your reading on the pipe isn't just a parallel path that hasn't been found/disconnected?
Normally on a EICR form there is simply a pass or fail tick box for condition/accessibility to bonding connections so if I can't see it.....its a fail. Simple!

 

[Ian1981]

There is no pass or fail box, it’s a tick for confirmation of an acceptable test of continuity.
In the schedules of inspections there’s a box for the condition and accessibility of the bonding conductors and it’s outcome.
A tick or a suitable code if applicable
So for an FI code you think that there’s potential or immediate danger.
Even tho a continuity test has confirmed a low resistance to earth.
Depending on the reading say 0.03 ohms you could even calculate if it’s a realistic value depending on the estimated cable run from the dB to the gas service.
A reading so low is unlikely to be from another circuits cpc in my opinion.
Just my take on it

 

[KevinH]

Fair enough a tick box for confirmation of continuity. But can you confirm continuity without disconnecting and doing an R2 to prove its not broken?
If I can't see it to remove it, then I can't confirm, therefore I give it a code FI. Or am I being too harsh?