Regs required for several faults

[brizospark]

I was carrying out an EICR on a newly renovated property this week and discovered a few faults. However the guys that done the job are disputing the faults and saying that the work is ok. Basically need regs / reference numbers to support my claims.

First one was BS951 clamps being used as main earthing point which we know is not suitable but are there any regs specific to this?

And second one is a bit trickier, basically water pipe comes into the building, and is bonded, from here there is a short piece of plastic pipe (around 200mm) long and then joined onto copper pipe again where it disappears below floor. RCD CU is installed so I know no supplementary bonding is required but given that there is a break in the continuity so close to the source, then it becomes copper again, I thought there should be a bonding link installed between the two copper parts so as to continue the bonding as there is no guarantee that the copper pipe disappearing below the floor is not trailing the ground at points etc, which would then make the rest of the copper pipework in the house extraneous. Cannot get below floor to check. Would you guys agree with this and if so is there a reg to back this up?

Many Thanks

 

[Farmelectrics]

It's a report that you've done so if the client doesn't act upon your advice it's down to him if anything goes wrong leave your report as it is take your money and move on to the next job

 

[Farmelectrics]

In the snags and solution book the niceic one it clearly shows you can't use a tenby clamp for main earthing haven't got reqs with me to give you a number but look it up when you get home

 

[trev]

Did you test any of the pipework to check it's extraneousity?

 

[brizospark]

Never tested the extraneousity of the pipe Trev no but thought it would be a good idea to cross bond this section just to err on the side of caution?

 

[trev]

You should always test for extraneousity mate. Some call it extraneous conductivity but I think that just sounds stupid.

 

[brizospark]

Trev, what method of testing do you use for verifying the extraneousity of conductive parts?

 

[trev]

Test between the suspect part and the met, any less than 23k ohms then it needs bonding.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Insulation resistance test between the suspected 'extraneous' part and earth (from a nearby socket or the CU itself - whichever easier).

If it tests greater than 23000 ohms then not extraneous. However, it tests between 1667 and 23000 then it would still need to be bonded as the RCD may not trip.

So basically you want a figure below 1667 or above 23000ohms.

 

[trev]

Or read D W Cockburn's work of genius and bond everything. I prefer the first method though

 

[brizospark]

Thanks Trev, is this the case for both whether installation RCD protected or not?

 

[HappyHippyDad]

No Brizo.. If no RCD then it needs to be bonded!

 

[brizospark]

yeah of course because of supplementary bonding. There are 2 circuits in CU which are not RCD protected but rest of them are

 

[dingledong]

No Brizo.. If no RCD then it needs to be bonded!

They have asked for you to do a report . Do not get into discussions with any one on site it's your responsibility
You may ask for something to be done while your there but just fill in the report and that's it as you see it

 

[Richard Burns]

A BS951 clamp is designed for the connection to a rigid round conductive surface and whilst an armoured cable or lead sheathed may appear to be suitable the compression on the cable can cause the cores to be compressed together and reduce the insulation resistance and in extreme case cause the cores to be pressed together causing a short, especially if the clamp is often tested for tightness by nipping it up a little each time.
The electrical connection may well be good but the risks are not.

The bonding issue would be down to measurement of the requirement as said above.

 

[trev]

If it tests greater than 23000 ohms then not extraneous. However, it tests between 1667 and 23000 then it would still need to be bonded as the RCD may not trip.

And if it tests out at below 1667?

 

[HappyHippyDad]

And if it tests out at below 1667?

Then supplementary bonding can be omitted as it would be classed as being 'effectively connected to the protective equipotential bonding'.

As long as it meets the other 2 points in reg 701.415.2 then it can be omitted.

But I know that you know this :smiley2:... so I feel like I've been led into the lions den and I await to be pounced on!!!!

 

[trev]

We're not talking about SB though, relax mate I'm not that much of a barsteward really

 

[HappyHippyDad]

We're not talking about SB though, relax mate I'm not that much of a barsteward really

Oh... I was quite looking forward to a discussion then Trev :sad3:! I'm still on a high from finding this fault (other thread) and feel that I could challenge D.Skelton or even Tony at the moment!!

..................10secs later


The moment has passed!

 

[dingledong]

We're not talking about SB though, relax mate I'm not that much of a barsteward really

Your not ? ?