I've seen various conflicting comments about upgrading main protective bonding conductors, and wonder if there is a consensus on this.
Typical scenario: Domestic CU change, PME supply, 16 or 25mm2 CSA tails, where the existing earthing and main protective bonding conductors do not meet current regulation - for example 10mm2 earthing conductor, 6mm2 bonding to gas and water.
Per the regs, the earthing conductor needs to be 16mm2, and typically this is fairly easy to upgrade if the DNO head is nearby, so just allow for this in the estimate and do it.
Per the regs, the main protective bonding conductors need to be 10mm2, but often this is not so easy to do. One service may enter nearby (e.g. Gas), while the other service (e.g. Water) may enter the opposite side of the house.
Guidance Note 8 (section 5.2.4) mentions for undersize main protective bonding, the designer can consider the adequacy and elect to retain the existing conductors, but then goes on to say for PME supplies a careful assessment is needed, and really the CSA should meet BS7671 table 54.8 i.e. 10mm2, and only don't upgrade if "comfortable with their adequacy", before finally adding that "consideration should be given to DNO requirements". Clear?
The ESC guide is just as helpful - "a 6mm2 bonding conductor could be deemed adequate ... if the conductors have been in place for a considerable time and show no signs of thermal damage".
My understanding is the 10mm2 bonding is needed to cope with a N fault in a PME supply, since the N current might travel back up the (16mm2) earthing conductor to the MET, and then via the (10mm2) main protective bonding conductors to the incoming services, and to earth via some other means. Please correct me if there is something more to this. How many incoming services there are to be bonded (and that they may be interconnected via pipework) could have an effect, though that is not considered in the regulations, as far as I am aware.
So assuming it is difficult to upgrade the main protective bonding to one service, and the customer would prefer it is not done, would you:
(a) insist they both have to be changed to 10mm2 anyway
(b) consider leaving the difficult one at 6mm2, but upgrade the other to 10mm2
(c) leave both main protective bonding cables at 6mm2
(d) something else - if so, what?
Typical scenario: Domestic CU change, PME supply, 16 or 25mm2 CSA tails, where the existing earthing and main protective bonding conductors do not meet current regulation - for example 10mm2 earthing conductor, 6mm2 bonding to gas and water.
Per the regs, the earthing conductor needs to be 16mm2, and typically this is fairly easy to upgrade if the DNO head is nearby, so just allow for this in the estimate and do it.
Per the regs, the main protective bonding conductors need to be 10mm2, but often this is not so easy to do. One service may enter nearby (e.g. Gas), while the other service (e.g. Water) may enter the opposite side of the house.
Guidance Note 8 (section 5.2.4) mentions for undersize main protective bonding, the designer can consider the adequacy and elect to retain the existing conductors, but then goes on to say for PME supplies a careful assessment is needed, and really the CSA should meet BS7671 table 54.8 i.e. 10mm2, and only don't upgrade if "comfortable with their adequacy", before finally adding that "consideration should be given to DNO requirements". Clear?
The ESC guide is just as helpful - "a 6mm2 bonding conductor could be deemed adequate ... if the conductors have been in place for a considerable time and show no signs of thermal damage".
My understanding is the 10mm2 bonding is needed to cope with a N fault in a PME supply, since the N current might travel back up the (16mm2) earthing conductor to the MET, and then via the (10mm2) main protective bonding conductors to the incoming services, and to earth via some other means. Please correct me if there is something more to this. How many incoming services there are to be bonded (and that they may be interconnected via pipework) could have an effect, though that is not considered in the regulations, as far as I am aware.
So assuming it is difficult to upgrade the main protective bonding to one service, and the customer would prefer it is not done, would you:
(a) insist they both have to be changed to 10mm2 anyway
(b) consider leaving the difficult one at 6mm2, but upgrade the other to 10mm2
(c) leave both main protective bonding cables at 6mm2
(d) something else - if so, what?