Regulation 544.1.2 - Main Equipotential Bonding to Gas and Water

[1shortcircuit]

The main equipotential bonding connection to any gas, water or other service shall be made as near as practicable to the point of entry of that service into the premises. Where there is an insulating section or insert at that point, or there is a meter, the connection shall be made to the consumer's hard metal pipework and before any branch pipework. Where practicable the connection shall be made within 600mm of the meter outlet union or at the point of entry to the building if the meter is external

I'm hoping that by posting this thread that someone with far superior knowledge of the Regulations will be able to help me see through this "Where practicable" part of the reg please.

I have been working with another spark today on a job where a second consumer unit needed to be fitted. During this installation I mentioned that it appeared that we would need to plan our routes for the Gas and Water bonding.

I was a little confused that my point of termination was totally different to the other Spark???

Another council property so all surface mount but a pig of a job to do it my way. The other spark was happy to just run straight to the closest pipe for each service and stated that this was acceptable because it's not financially viable to got to within 600mm because of the disruption involved, time involved and the "reasonably practicable" wording of the reg.

Also, the main earth was way undersized and because it was in the existing Consumer Unit so therefore not an issue?

I would have created an extra days work on top of a very busy schedule but I believe I am right in doing so but the other spark is time served and it's his name going on the Cert's.

I guess what I am asking is, although I think I am correct in believing both Water/Gas and Main Bonding should be replaced regardless of the disruption/extra day involved are there any other regs or valid reasons that would back up the reasoning of the other spark.

Thanks in advance

1SC

 

[Deleted member 26818]

To my mind it means that if pipe work comes into the property at the front of the building, but doesn't surface above the floor boards untill the kitchen sink at the rear of the property, then the practicable place to put the bond is where the pipe work comes through the floor in the kitchen.

 

[Des 56]

I think you have in mind that the exposed part of the service is away in the distance and is just a pain gettin to it and the other spark wants ease of install by plonking it where its conveniant
If so,it should go "where practical"at the point of entry not "where conveniant" at the place of idle choice

 

[IQ Electrical]

I'm hoping that by posting this thread that someone with far superior knowledge of the Regulations will be able to help me see through this "Where practicable" part of the reg please.

I have been working with another spark today on a job where a second consumer unit needed to be fitted. During this installation I mentioned that it appeared that we would need to plan our routes for the Gas and Water bonding.

I was a little confused that my point of termination was totally different to the other Spark???

Another council property so all surface mount but a pig of a job to do it my way. The other spark was happy to just run straight to the closest pipe for each service and stated that this was acceptable because it's not financially viable to got to within 600mm because of the disruption involved, time involved and the "reasonably practicable" wording of the reg.

Also, the main earth was way undersized and because it was in the existing Consumer Unit so therefore not an issue?

I would have created an extra days work on top of a very busy schedule but I believe I am right in doing so but the other spark is time served and it's his name going on the Cert's.

I guess what I am asking is, although I think I am correct in believing both Water/Gas and Main Bonding should be replaced regardless of the disruption/extra day involved are there any other regs or valid reasons that would back up the reasoning of the other spark.

Thanks in advance

1SC

Well, like you say, it's his name and he's noting and signing for the departure on the Electrical Installation Certificate, he should also comment on the undersized main earth conductor too in the 'comments on existing installation' box although he's probably done a quick adiabatic calculation to confirm it's suitability

 

[1shortcircuit]

Well, like you say, it's his name and he's noting and signing for the departure on the Electrical Installation Certificate, he should also comment on the undersized main earth conductor too in the 'comments on existing installation' box although he's probably done a quick adiabatic calculation to confirm it's suitability

Yeah I'm sure he has lol

"where practical"at the point of entry not "where conveniant" at the place of idle choice

This is the problem, I DO believe that this is the reason on this occasion

 

[topquark]

It's time to put on makeup, it's time to dress up right, (he's a muppet!).

 

[Des 56]

It's time to put on makeup, it's time to dress up right, (he's a muppet!).

lol

:carolers:
I think we can all join in to that

 

[MarkieSparkie]

Des hit nail on the head Short. This regulation and others use "near as practicable" and "where practicable" many sparks wrongly interpret practicable as convenient usually to make their job easy. An accurate synonym for practicable is possible. I tried to get the IET to adopt this change of wording for the BGB, I thought this alternative word would lessen the lazy interpretation, but alas I failed to convince the technical commitee, they suggested that users were fully aware of the current meaning and therefore a change was deemed unnecessary. Of course that was not the point I was trying to make.

 

[oxocube]

he's probably done a quick adiabatic calculation to confirm it's suitability

You cannot apply the adiabatic to bonding conductors.

Edit - My comment was unjustified because IQ was referring to the main earth, and not bonding conductors, apologies to IQ.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

You cannot apply the adiabatic to bonding conductors.

Think IQ was referring to the undersized earthing conductor here.

 

[IQ Electrical]

Think IQ was referring to the undersized earthing conductor here.

Exactly, I wrote 'the undersized main earth conductor' !

 

[telectrix]

maybe his eyes ain't in focus yet, like mine. just psyching meself up to an outside lighting first fix 35 miles away.LOL.

 

[oxocube]

I apologise IQ, my comment was unjustified and misplaced.

 

[IQ Electrical]

I apologise IQ, my comment was unjustified and misplaced.

No problem

 

[1shortcircuit]

Just thought I would add a little update.

I have now kicked this company into touch as I am not happy that they are working to BS7671 and I do not want my name associated in any way with theirs.

Unfortunately this puts me in a less fortunate position but hey, I hope to be making a more positive post next month