Earthing the gas mains

[RMS]

I personally would prefer running in another bond, but if that is not an option then joining is fine.

I would not even consider running a new protective bond in unless it was feasible to do so. What I mean by this is that if it required a lot of time and effort and caused major disruption within the property then I would not think twice about connecting to an existing local service bond. This may be by lugging onto the BS951 clamp or through crimping to achieve the desired amount of cable to reach the new bonding point.

When carrying out an EICR I would not comment or assign a code to this as there is no breach of any regulation. We are not expected to use and comment about any of the guidance notes when carrying out EICR's. However, we are required to use BS7671 and access and make a judgement on compliance.

 

[transam]

The gas industry unsafe situation.s procedure

( guidance for gas operatives) would classify an un earthed meter as ncs not to current standards.


As opposed to AR ( at risk ) or ID ( imediately dangerous ) or concern for safety a only used by ESP's ( emergency service providers )

 

[RF Lighting]

Just out of interest, what is the BS7671 requirement number for the bonding of intermediate extraneous-conductive-parts?

What is an intermediate extraneous-conductive-part?

 

[JohnW2]

Just out of interest, what is the BS7671 requirement number for the bonding of intermediate extraneous-conductive-parts?

What is an intermediate extraneous-conductive-part?

I'm glad I'm not the only one I wondered whether he was trying to refer to the length of cable clamped to, say, a service pipe on the pipe side of a join in the cable!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Just out of interest, what is the BS7671 requirement number for the bonding of intermediate extraneous-conductive-parts?

More to the point, what BS7671 regulation number states a "continuous" bond?

It is not more to the point, it is the same point.
Please enlighten me?

 

[vibrobullit407]

Just out of interest, what is the BS7671 requirement number for the bonding of intermediate extraneous-conductive-parts?

More to the point, what BS7671 regulation number states a "continuous" bond?

It is not more to the point, it is the same point.
Please enlighten me?

There is no regulation in BS7671 that states this. That is the point!

 

[bernardgreen]

The gas industry unsafe situation.s procedure

( guidance for gas operatives) would classify an un earthed meter as ncs not to current standards.

But bonding a gas pipe to the MET is NOT earthing the meter unless the electrical supply is a TT system. In almost all other types of electrical supply the gas pipe bonding connects it to the neutral of the incoming electrical supply cable. For electrical safety the neutral inside the house should be treated as a "live" conductor. Which suggests a gas meter bonded to the electrical "earth", the CPC derived fromth neutral, should be considered as "live" for safety evaluation procedures.

How can the gas meter reader be assured there is not a electrical supply network fault which has driven the network neutral to a voltage high enough to be a hazard to anyone touching the "safety bonded" gas meter ?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

On an EICR opinions of good and poor practice should not be noted only the regulations that have been broken as it is a legal document showing compliance to BS7671 not an interpretation of some ones work.

And what if you encounter work which in your professional opinion does not qualify as good workmanship?

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Just out of interest, what is the BS7671 requirement number for the bonding of intermediate extraneous-conductive-parts?

What is an intermediate extraneous-conductive-part?

It is where the bonding conductor is connected across more than one extraneous-conductive-part.
Anything between the MET (or CU earth busbar) and the final extraneous-conductive-part to be bonded using one conductor, would be an intermediate part.

 

[RMS]

It is where the bonding conductor is connected across more than one extraneous-conductive-part.
Anything between the MET (or CU earth busbar) and the final extraneous-conductive-part to be bonded using one conductor, would be an intermediate part.

Does BS7671 use this terminology?

 

[vibrobullit407]

And what if you encounter work which in your professional opinion does not qualify as good workmanship?

I would have an opinion on it obviously, and I would let the customer know. I would not how ever mark this down on an EICR unless the poor workmanship breached a regulation and I could refer to the reg number it breached.

Do you carry out many EICR's? If so do you note on the report that in your opinion some workmanship is poor even though it complies? What code would you mark down c1, c2 or c3?

 

[JohnW2]

And what if you encounter work which in your professional opinion does not qualify as good workmanship?

I would have an opinion on it obviously, and I would let the customer know. I would not how ever mark this down on an EICR unless the poor workmanship breached a regulation and I could refer to the reg number it breached.

I suspect than BAS's point was that poor workmanship, per se, breaches 134.1.1 - so, if you wanted to, you could cite that reg number. However, whether or not something constitutes 'bad workmanship' is obviously reliant on a very subjective opinion, on which even experts may not agree in a particular case.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[RMS]

I would not how ever mark this down on an EICR unless the poor workmanship breached a regulation and I could refer to the reg number it breached.

What if there was only one single socket in a kitchen that clearly required more and the customer was using a series of extension leads for appliances.

Would you give any mention of this on the report?

Do you carry out many EICR's? If so do you note on the report that in your opinion some workmanship is poor even though it complies? What code would you mark down c1, c2 or c3?

Does section E, "Summary of the condition of the installation" require a code?

 

[vibrobullit407]

I personally would only mark down if the "bad workmanship" posed a risk of fire, shock or electrocution as that is the reason on checking the condition of the installation.

As JohnW2 says it is the opinion some one has of poor workmanship. For example I would not mark down a messy board, poor workmanship but no risk. Just because someone might not be as neat as someone else does IMO not constitute a breach of the regulations, therefore does not require a c3.

I think I read a NICEIC best practice guide to EICR's that prohibits opinions to be recorded.

RMS in regards to section E;

"The summary of condition of the installation in terms of safety should be clearly indicated in Section E.
Observation(s), if any, should be categorised in Section M using the coding C1 to C3 as appropriate. Any
observation given a C1 or C2 classification should result in the overall condition of the installation being reported as
unsatisfactory."

My interpretation would be that I would have to apply a code to an observation(s). Some more discussions on this would be beneficial to my understanding.

 

[JohnW2]

I personally would only mark down if the "bad workmanship" posed a risk of fire, shock or electrocution as that is the reason on checking the condition of the installation. As JohnW2 says it is the opinion some one has of poor workmanship. For example I would not mark down a messy board, poor workmanship but no risk. Just because someone might not be as neat as someone else does IMO not constitute a breach of the regulations, therefore does not require a c3.

I would hope that all electricians would generally work on that common sense basis.

However, as has been discussed before, an EICR is undertaken on the basis of a contract between the electrician and whoever is commissioing the report. I see no reason why the person commisioning could not, if they so wished, request that the scope of the report should include opinions on such matters as the quality of workmanship, even when 'codable' breaches of BS7671 did not exist.

Kind Regards, John.