Unable to find earth rod when doing EICR

[HappyHippyDad]

Evening chaps and SC...

I was carrying out an EICR today. I could not find the earth rod anywhere. I could see a 10mm leaving the CU and going down the wall of the porch then it goes at an angle through the wall (towards the outside) and then I cannot see anything else. Following the angle through the wall to the outside (20cm) leads to a conctrete step at the front entrance of the house. I think it's been concreted in.

I have 2 questions..

1. What do I put for 'presence and condition of earth electrode connection'? I guess it should be FI, but a degree of common sense has to be used as the chap is not going to let me dig up his front step. The resistance to earth of this cable was 63Ω.

2. What do I put as the Ze? Do I assume this is the Main Earth cable?

I can clearly see the pathway of the gas bonding. The water is bonded so this could be the Main Bond for the water but it's unlikely as there is a better pathway for the other 10mm leaving the CU to the water.

My thoughts are that I put NV for question 1 above and 63Ω for the Ze (with a note in the summary saying this is assuming that is the Main Earth cable)?

 

[Deuce]

It is completely relevant that it tests ok. What are you on about?

I explained in the text you quoted.

 

[buzzlightyear]

the only way of finding out is to start digging .if there is a rod in . by using a big digger .

 

[Deuce]

Have you tested it? "yes".
Did it pass? "yes".
What did you test? "Dunno".

I can't be convinced that is satisfactory. Lots of arrangements could result in a successful test with suitable resistance, especially in damp conditions such as this time of year. If the builder compacted a load of hardcore on top of the rod and smashed the conductor termination to the rod to pieces, it would still probably test OK if the substrate is damp around the detached conductor.

It's probably fine, I accent that. But there has to be a cut off where you just don't need to take the risk professionally, and I think it's easily justified when you don't know what it is you're testing/assessing.

 

[markc123]

All the above are C3 recommendations and do not warrant an ‘Unsatisfactory’ report.

Let me start by saying I read a lot of your posts Essex and I know you know your ---- & respect your opinions.

However, I can’t back this pal I just can’t.

1) You have no clue what you’re testing, or how many.
2) external conditions could influence the decent readings when in reality you have a fairly poor connection. I understand the OPs reading of 63ohms is a monumental jump downfrom the required >100ohm readings for a stable earth. >200oohm by the book. It’s still possible though.
3) You can’t use a dedicated earth electrode tester properly. I understand there is a way which can be used in said scenario, not one that anyone really uses due to the fact the test readings won’t be accurate if you have electrodes connected in parallel.

Slight tanjent some of the points above, I know. But, for me, it’s enough to steer me to an FI and unsatisfactory. You just can’t guarantee your Zs’s are stable. I understand the shortened test period and I could maybe back it, however the cost of another EICR to be undertaken in 6months time will outweigh the cost of another rod installed.

For me it literally comes down to the fact that the electrode isn’t accessible for testing and maintenance despite the 63ohm sound reading.

New Rod I stand by.

Night al!

 

[buzzlightyear]

its down to the inspector on testing weather putting down a N/V or F1
he is the one will have the conscience .but the next person who test after him will say what a F**k idiot .

 

[markc123]

EICRs are open to so much interpretation it’s actually ridiculous.

Let me put it this way. There’s no way I’d be able to confidently hand over an EICR without verifying the type, condition and connection of electrode. End of the day, like said above, it’s down to the assessor. You make your bed and you lie in it.

 

[Deuce]

its down to the inspector on testing weather putting down a N/V or F1
he is the one will have the conscience .but the next person who test after him will say what a F**k idiot .

That's my feeling. It's a not that it's wrong as such, at the end of the day the test results are OK (good, in fact) so it's not 'wrong'.

But it's also clearly not a satisfactory situation regardless of the test result. And as you say, you could hardly sign off on it with pride knowing that down the line someone else is going to encounter the same situation.

One day that somebody will encourage the owner to put a new rod in. Might as well be this day, and might as well be the OP asking the question in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

'Oh bugger I've forgotten the earth rod, ah I know lets bury that old bike frame and connect to that instead !'

Works for me.

 

[buzzlightyear]

the op could say to the customer heads or tails. Heads i win new rod
tails i will not put one in .

 

[Deleted member 26818]

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?

 

[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.