Using pipe work to bond to incoming water

[atm84]

I have recently come across a situation whereby instead of running a main equipotential bonding conductor from the MET to the incoming water someone had instead ran a short bond from the MET to some copper pipe in the mains cupboard and clamped it and then placed a bond on the pipe near the incoming water (at the other end of the property) and bonded to the incoming water there.

Wander lead method states 0.02 ohms resistance.

I know this is not good practice but where does it say in the regs it has to be a continuous conductor and that you can't do it.

 

[telectrix]

regs. specify that the bond to an incoming service should be within 600mm of the point of entry to the building, or as close as practicable. the scenario you describe might be fine as it stands, but when wet-pants comes along and cuts out some copper andreplaces it with that crappy DIY plastic crap, then you've lost your bond to the extarneous incoming service.

 

[Richard Burns]

Obviously not a good idea as Tel says.
GN8 says that if the bonding is looped between services (e.g. MET to gas then gas to water) the the conductor should remain unbroken.
However 543.2 says that a bonding conductor can be a variety of different materials (many of which would require numerous joints) but do specify that the continuity of the bonding should be assured.

 

[PEG]

This could also be one of the occasions,where a visual,physical examination,could provide a better indication of possible issues,as 1x PFC is not available on the MFT :cyclist:

 

[atm84]

Guys cheers for the comments. I agree not ideal but I explained the scenario about the plumber coming along and cutting the pipe and the connection being lost. The section in GN8 certainly does say about the connection being unbroken however this reads as more of a 'recommendation' than a 'requirement' and describes a slightly different scenario.

I would never do it myself, I think it's poor practice but at the moment there is a bond. The resistance meets regulations blah blah blah. Would anyone give it a code when carrying out EICR?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

What kind of warnings are there about not removing the pipe work, or replacing it with plastic?
Anything on the EIC, or any labels affixed along the pipe work?

 

[atm84]

No nothing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Risteard]

The resistance meets regulations

The Regulations do not give a resistance to meet. If the resistance is that to be expected for the length and cross-sectional area of the cable you have then it is fine, otherwise something is wrong.

 

[atm84]

I thought it had to have a resistance of 0.02 ohms or less


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DPG]

That's the bonding connection itself. Not the length of bonding cable. You can only work out what that should be by using the tables of resistance. Daz

 

[Simonslimline]

I thought it had to have a resistance of 0.02 ohms or less


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Out of interest where did you get the figure above from?

 

[DPG]

There's a figure in GN3 but I'm not sure it's that one. Daz

 

[atm84]

Just read in GN3 that it should be 0.05 ohms or less


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Simonslimline]

There's a figure in GN3 but I'm not sure it's that one. Daz

Yes 0.05 is in Guidance note 3.

No value in BS7671 though.

 

[Simonslimline]

Just read in GN3 that it should be 0.05 ohms or less


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post 8 & post 10 sum it up nicely i would say.

 

[atm84]

Doesn't really provide the answer as to whether a copper pipe can be constituted as a main equipotential bonding conductor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Leesparkykent]

Doesn't really provide the answer as to whether a copper pipe can be constituted as a main equipotential bonding conductor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

543.2.1 (Vii) and 543.2.6 page167 BYB.

 

[atm84]

That relates to a protective conductor not a main equipotential bonding conductor. No body has said if they would happily use a copper heating pipe as part of a main equipotential bonding conductor. What code would anyone apply?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Leesparkykent]

That relates to a protective conductor not a main equipotential bonding conductor. No body has said if they would happily use a copper heating pipe as part of a main equipotential bonding conductor. What code would anyone apply?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah......look up the definition of a protective conductor!

 

[atm84]

In that case a copper heating pipe cannot be used as a main equipotential bonding conductor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[yellowvanman]

In that case a copper heating pipe cannot be used as a main equipotential bonding conductor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why? ...

 

[atm84]

Because it's not in the list in section 543.2.1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[atm84]

Why? ...

Would you? In particular when the bond is not a continuous conductor which may be liable to disconnection by other trades.

 

[davesparks]

That relates to a protective conductor not a main equipotential bonding conductor. No body has said if they would happily use a copper heating pipe as part of a main equipotential bonding conductor. What code would anyone apply?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A main bond is a protective conductor.

You need to read exactly what is written in the regulations and not make assumptions.
The term protective conductor encompasses both cpc and all bonding conductors