Earthing the gas mains

[DetlefSchmitz]

John, I'm in complete agreement with you.

 

[RF Lighting]

but if you were I&Ting would use BS7671 or GN3?

You use BS7671.

If you pulled this up on an EICR and someone asked you which regulation it contravened what would you say?

I like to use an unbroken conductor, as it's good practice to do so. BS7671 is the minimum standard you must work to. There is nothing to stop you working beyond those regulations.

 

[JohnW2]

Anyway GN8 in a nut shell "Where the main ebc is looped from on extraneous-conductive-part to another. The main main ebc should remain unbroken at intermediate points, thus maintaining continuity to other extraneous-conductive-parts should one be disconnected for what ever reason". I know it's guidance and not part of the requirements, but if you were I&Ting would use BS7671 or GN3?

Thanks. I think what you have may become 'out of date' in 3 or 4 weeks time! As far as I can make out, the 'current' version of GN8 relates to 16th Ed. (BS7671:2001 Amd 2) - and, as DetlefSchmitz has pointed out, the 16th Ed OSG recommeded unbroken MPBs, but that this was removed in the 17th ed. OSG.

It seems that a new GN8 is to be published very shortly - on 28th February, so it will be interesting to see whether, like the 17th Ed OSG, the 'unbroken MPB' guidance has been dropped!

Kind Regards, John

 

[vibrobullit407]

I agree with RF, if you identify a fault on an EICR then you must be able to state the regulation number that it breaks. In this situation there is no number due to the fact that it does not breach the regulations.

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.

 

[riveralt]

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.

I wouldn't go as far as saying it is a legal document. Its a document that is produced as a result of a private contract between the owner of the property and the person carrying out the inspection.

 

[vibrobullit407]

I wouldn't go as far as saying it is a legal document. Its a document that is produced as a result of a private contract between the owner of the property and the person carrying out the inspection.

Quite right , getting a bit carried away there. This document is there just to show compliance to BS7671, but could be used as evidence if something causing harm had been missed and customer had not been informed.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

but if you were I&Ting would use BS7671 or GN3?

You use BS7671.

If you pulled this up on an EICR and someone asked you which regulation it contravened what would you say?

I like to use an unbroken conductor, as it's good practice to do so. BS7671 is the minimum standard you must work to. There is nothing to stop you working beyond those regulations.

That is all well and good but GN3 is a more informative guide as far as performing the I&Ting.

 

[RF Lighting]

You can't pull up stuff as being non-compliant when it isn't. It either complies with BS7671 or it doesn't.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

It seems that a new GN8 is to be published very shortly - on 28th February, so it will be interesting to see whether, like the 17th Ed OSG, the 'unbroken MPB' guidance has been dropped!

Kind Regards, John

Unfortunately are lot of the guidance notes have been left behind and never got updated when the 17th edition came in, unlike GN3. GN8 is is still stuck in the era of 16th eds.

But to me it makes perfect sense to have the cable unbroken, but in the OP's situation it would be far safer bonding between gas and water regardless of that. As a temp measure.

 

[JohnW2]

Its a document that is produced as a result of a private contract between the owner of the property and the person carrying out the inspection.

Indeed so. I presume that contract could widen the scope to include the reporting of matters of 'less than ideal practice' (even though BS7671-compliant) if the person commissioning the EICR so wished?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[securespark]

4. There is a water mains pipe which is earthed from the mains and is near the kitchen. Can I get the electrician to extend this to the gas main?

No! but they can be connected together, the earth cable must be in one continues length piece, no joints or cuts in the cable, not even at the earthing clamps.

if the existing cable passes past the gas pipe before connecting to water, you could clamp it on if enough slack in cable

I don't think it would be very wrong to extend the cable at the water with a butt crimp.

A water butt crimp?

 

[securespark]

This is all very chummy. Someone is in complete agreement with John, someone else agrees with RF.

Well, that's all very well, but to bring some semblance of normality back to the forum, I'm going to be intolerably rude.

Oh no, hang on, I'll leave that to Ban.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

You can't pull up stuff as being non-compliant when it isn't. It either complies with BS7671 or it doesn't.

I am not calling the issue of compliant/non-compliant.
I am stating the guidelines which make things compliant.
The guidelines are in place as BS7671 may state requirements but is often very vague on the ways/methods that compliance is made.
If BS7671 was not so vague there would be no need to be paying £20 a chuck for the GNs!
Just out of interest, what is the BS7671 requirement number for the bonding of intermediate extraneous-conductive-parts?

 

[vibrobullit407]

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

Getting back to the op, joining the gas to the water is permitted by BS7671 and is acceptable. I personally would prefer running in another bond, but if that is not an option then joining is fine.

Better doing this than not bonding at all!

 

[sparkwright]

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

Getting back to the op, joining the gas to the water is permitted by BS7671 and is acceptable. I personally would prefer running in another bond, but if that is not an option then joining is fine.

Better doing this than not bonding at all!

Exactly, sometimes you have to be practical and use what's already in place.

It's all going to be cut off (short) by a plumber or heating engineer anyway.

Although the more conscientious ones cut their pipes and leave the cable and earth clamp intact connected to a piece of a 2 inch long pipe dangling.