18th 544.1.2

[JohnW2]

... So how does your logic involve this service pipe material in any way? MDPE service pipe has been used for probably around 20 years or so for gas I would have thought.

Again, none of this is "my logic" - it's all plain facts.

Anyway, I haven't got a clue as to what you're talking about. We're only interested in pipework within a property, and my understanding is that, at least for domestic properties, all of that (including the pipe which enters the premises) has to be metal - is that not the case? That's different from what has happened with water over recent decades, since an MDPE water supply pipe is allowed to, and often does (at least with new builds), enter the property.

So, unless I misunderstand the rules/regulations regarding gas, the gas pipe entering a property (either from an external meter or to an internal one) is necessarily metal. The question of whether it requires main bonding then depends only upon whether or not it comes into contact with 'The Earth' outside the house.

Two normal outside mounting points for gas meters, in a wall cabinet or semi submerged. The latter has a special meter that is designed to sit in a pool of water and this is often the case to find it so.

We've discussed semi-submerged gas meters before. If the situation is such that the (again, presumably metal) pipe going from the meter into the house is liable to 'come into contact with The Earth' (and that would include sitting in a pool of water), then the pipe would be an extraneous-c-p and would therefore require main bonding. With a meter in a wall cabinet, that pipe is usually a long way from the ground so that, if the meter is supplied via MDPE (or if there is no electrical continuity across the meter), it does NOT require main bonding.

Kind Regards, John

 

[AlanE]

if the meter is supplied via MDPE (or if there is no electrical continuity across the meter)

There is electrical continuity.

 

[JohnW2]

There is electrical continuity.

Fair enough. I know that traditionally that was always the case, but with all the plastic appearing in everything these days, I was not sure whether or not there might now be some which didn't have electrical continuity across them - hence my 'if',

In that case, if there is underground metal pipe (rather than MDPE) upstream of the meter, then the (inevitably metal) pipe entering the property from the meter would need main bonding.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

if the meter is supplied via MDPE (or if there is no electrical continuity across the meter), it does NOT require main bonding.

There is electrical continuity.

That doesn't alter the veracity of the statement.

Insulating section anyone?

This was, at one time, of metal construction. But an insulating fitting was fitted between the pipe itself and the emergency isolation off valve. This would then mean that the actual pipe was electrically isolated from the meter itself. Follows therefore that no current can flow from the property back to the ground earth.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The regulation to bond on the consumer's side of an internal meter is the regulation that I have been saying has been wrong for years and has just now been corrected.

There never was such a regulation.

 

[securespark]

Insulating section anyone?

Thanks. Don't mind if I do!

 

[AlanE]

There never was such a regulation.

What was never a regulation?

 

[EFLImpudence]

There never was such a regulation.

There was.

I know you mean that the consumer's pipe is not an e-c-p therefore it didn't apply, BUT -

it did actually tell people who were about to correctly connect an MPB to the incoming pipe, that if there was an insulating section then they should instead connect it to the consumer's side of the meter.

 

[JohnW2]

There was. I know you mean that the consumer's pipe is not an e-c-p therefore it didn't apply, BUT - it did actually tell people who were about to correctly connect an MPB to the incoming pipe, that if there was an insulating section then they should instead connect it to the consumer's side of the meter.

Indeed.

At the very least it was confusing/misleading and in at least some sense 'wrong'. Some people will say (presumably as BAS is doing) that other regulations say that only an extraneous-c-p needs main bonding, so that the regulation about 'where to bond' does not apply. However, there is no getting away from the fact that that later reg did say that, in some situations (regardless of what they might be) one should apply main bonding on the consumer's side of an 'insulating section'. That is clearly plain wrong, and nonsense, in any situation, and could only have been written by someone who did not understand the concept or purpose of main bonding.

... and, as you say, if there were a significant length of metal pipe (which was an extraneous-c-p) within the property upstream of the insulating section/meter/whatever, to 'comply' with that regulation would have been potentially dangerous.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There was.

I know you mean that the consumer's pipe is not an e-c-p therefore it didn't apply,

And you stop there.

What it says after that is irrelevant, because you don't read it, because you don't go any further because it's not an e-c-p.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed.

At the very least it was confusing/misleading and in at least some sense 'wrong'. Some people will say (presumably as BAS is doing) that other regulations say that only an extraneous-c-p needs main bonding, so that the regulation about 'where to bond' does not apply. However, there is no getting away from the fact that that later reg did say that, in some situations (regardless of what they might be) one should apply main bonding on the consumer's side of an 'insulating section'. That is clearly plain wrong, and nonsense, in any situation, and could only have been written by someone who did not understand the concept or purpose of main bonding.

Or read and acted upon by the same class of person.

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe, but in terms of 'right' and 'wrong' (which is what was being discussed/challenged) I still think it was very wrong for a regulation to have even suggested or implied the possibility that it ever could be appropriate to connect a main bonding conductor to a conductive part on the consumer's side of an electrically insulating section - even though someone who read, considered and understood the regulations as a whole would realise that they were talking about a situation which could never exist.

 

[AlanE]

Think I might just see why there is confusion here.

Have either of you actually either been involved with earthing of gas supplies I am aware John has not, or recently seen a gas meter installed indoors but not in a garage. I mean a gas meter that is in the then common location of under the stairs and where the incomming service supply pipe went downwards and through the floor?

 

[EFLImpudence]

The incoming service supply does not go downwards into the ground; it comes upwards out of the ground.

Such pipes are never 'earthed'.



Alan: I don't know how I am managing to remain so polite. Perhaps you should heed this well known saying -

 

[AlanE]

The incoming service supply does not go downwards into the ground; it comes upwards out of the ground.

Such pipes are never 'earthed'.



Alan: I don't know how I am managing to remain so polite. Perhaps you should heed this well known saying -

View attachment 150582

Depends upon which end you are looking at. I described the pipe as going downwards from the meter and pray tell me where I have EVER said this pipe should be earthed I have always maintained the gas supply should be earthed after the meter and it is this that seems to wrong in yours, and Johns minds..

Normal meters have also not been installed indoors for a good many years now.