Main Equipotential Bonding

[JACKC]

Can someone point me in the right direction. The main incoming water should be bonded to the MET within 600mmm of entering property, pipework form this supply has been replaced in plastic for 50% of the installation but plumber has joined plastic to existing copper for remainder as not asked to replace the toilet water supplies. Water stopcock is copper. Do I need to run bonding from MET to start of copper pipework run as this is not within the 600mm, more like 10 metres. Would it have been better to leave a small length of copper pipework at stopcock to comply with the regs? What do the pro's do. OSG not clear on this issue and is open to interpration.
Many thanks in anticipation.

 

[securespark]

Bond where the plastic ends and copper begins. But make sure it is accessible, not under the floor!

 

[FingRinal]

Or identify it's location on a good diagram.

 

[JACKC]

Thanks for that,
no problem in making it obvious as copper pipe now starts inside female toilet, but is this bit of pipe still classed as extraneous as no longer a complete continuous circuit back to main incoming stopcock?

 

[securespark]

Or identify it's location on a good diagram.

How is that going to help access if there's a laminate floor down?

Surely best practice is to make it so that it is easily accessible?

 

[FingRinal]

Of course fully accessible is ideal, but who mentioned laminate? Who cares if somene subsequently puts laminate down or builds in some furniture? I'm afraid thats their problem. If they are made aware by a competent electrician and it's noted on paperwork, what they subsequently do is down to them.

Best practice depends on the individual situation. We don't live in a perect world.

If electricians did a proper job and left charts, diagrams etc. people would soon wise up to the fact that in x years, a board in the corner of the hallway will have to come to test the earthing. If not, they'll get either an unwelcome Unsatisfactory or a bill for new bonding.

I think the days when insurance companies don't care about PIRs are coming to an end. Already, some landlord's are being told by their insurance companies to have a PIR every 5 years.

 

[Click-Sure]

FingRinal has a point. Nobody ever seen dwellings with evidence of removed bonding only to be told 'the wife thought it looked ugly, right there on show, so I got my toolbox out...'

 

[FingRinal]

Ever been told NOT to install it and been refused payment for the whole job because you did install it?

 

[JACKC]

the pipe runs along 150mm below the ceiling as its in a village hall so looks were not important, it was cost and speed of fit. My question is now that it has been split into plastic pipe then copper is the copper part of the water pipework still extranious as it is not a continuos circuit back to the stopcock?
I am a little confused by the subject

 

[FingRinal]

It's hard to tell without actually seeing it. But, if there is a significant portion of copper within the installation, it should be treated as extraneous unless someone inspects/tests it and confirms that it isn't.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If there's a significant length of plastic before it becomes copper, then it won't be an e-c-p - the impedance to earth will be too high (115k ohms/m for 15mm pipe, 65k for 20mm pipe).

But if you can't make a bonding connection to the outgoing side of the stopcock then even though it makes no engineering sense whatsoever you'll have to bond where it becomes copper again.

Which will leave the metal stopcock, which is an e-c-p completely unbonded. Go figure....

IMO it would be a good idea to bond the stopcock as well.