Supplementary equipotential bonding

[jonthesparks]

Could I have some clarification on this issue ,

the tight customer does not want a new CU ,

so the only option is supp bonding the bathroom , from what I've read is link the hot and cold copper pipes and the rad and that's it . Bs7671 does not require a link from the supp bond to a cpc on an accessory , so long as the main water is bonded back to the MET . Is this the correct way to interpret it ?

 

[Richard Burns]

Supplementary bonding should join together all accessible exposed and extraneous conductive parts in the location.
This would include the cpcs for any electrical circuits, otherwise it is pretty pointless.
The main bonding is also required to be in place.

 

[Octopus]

What electrical work are you planning on in the bathroom?

 

[jonthesparks]

Surely if your main water is bonded back to the met , then , in theory all copper pipe work from there on is directly connected to the met ,provided there are no plastic joints . So to save looking for plastic joints connecting to a cpc terminal is ensuring continuity ?

 

[telectrix]

question has been asked. what work are you proposing. 9/10 you'll have to fit RCD protection anyway. if customer won't pay, walk.

 

[jonthesparks]

This was brought up during an eicr . Customer lives in a Purpose built block of flats , metal clad CU with no rcd protection . No work planned , yet .

 

[telectrix]

so. if there's no supp. bonding and no RCD it's a code C2. then it's down to the owner to get it fixed or not.

 

[Octopus]

This was brought up during an eicr . Customer lives in a Purpose built block of flats , metal clad CU with no rcd protection . No work planned , yet .

So send them the bill for the EICR and walk away.

 

[Geoffsd]

so the only option is supp bonding the bathroom

No.

from what I've read is link the hot and cold copper pipes and the rad and that's it

No.

Bs7671 does not require a link from the supp bond to a cpc on an accessory

But the circuit may require it.

so long as the main water is bonded back to the MET

MPB must be in place regardless.

Is this the correct way to interpret it ?

No.

You must determine by testing whether the parts are extraneous and then if supplementary bonding is required.

Is supplementary bonding not required and that is why there is none?

 

[HappyHippyDad]

I must admit this subject is the one that throws me the most!! I have just purchased guidance note 8 and am itching to get into it and it should answer some of these questions.... I hope!

Perhaps make the same purchase Jon?

 

[sparks1234]

Cheaper way if they don't want board change is RCD adjacent to it,,,,tight git

 

[SPARTYKUS]

I must admit this subject is the one that throws me the most!! I have just purchased guidance note 8 and am itching to get into it and it should answer some of these questions.... I hope!

Perhaps make the same purchase Jon?

its alot more interesting than GN3 in my opinion.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

its alot more interesting than GN3 in my opinion.

I expect I'll get that one as well when I stop grumbling at spending £20 for a book!! I'm guessing GN3 isn't quite as riveting.. :smile5:

 

[SPARTYKUS]

Its a bit dry, and the ending is a letdown.

 

[Brightspark2]

Its a bit dry, and the ending is a letdown.

I like the story...its a bit of a test...

 

[rattlehead85]

No.


No.


But the circuit may require it.


MPB must be in place regardless.


No.

You must determine by testing whether the parts are extraneous and then if supplementary bonding is required.

Is supplementary bonding not required and that is why there is none?

When confirming if the pipework in the location is extraneous or not and there is a protective main bond to the incoming metal water service do you need to disconnect this before performing a test between the M.E.T and pipework within the location?

 

[Geoffsd]

No.
...