Replacement of lead water supply pipe with plastic - bonding

I thought the lead pipe was bonded as it had a long run in the ground (where as the copper pipe wont be in the ground)?!
That's correct but the regulations state the bonding shall be connected as suggested.

The pipe will still be connected to all the rest.
 
Sponsored Links
I'm prepared to be slagged off but I'm pretty sure if your pipe doesn't go to earth and you add an 'escape route' to it, if you have a fault, that pipework will become, potentially, live.

Plastic Water Supply Pipe
IR Test between the copper (tap/pipe) if it is there and the MET.
If it's more than 22KΩ don't bond, and if it's less than 22 KΩ it needs bonding.
 
I'm prepared to be slagged off but I'm pretty sure if your pipe doesn't go to earth
544.1.2
It is still connected to -
boiler inc. cpcs., CH inc. valves inc. cpcs., gas pipe inc. bonding, MET,
consider it supplementary bonding.

but and you add an 'escape route' to it, if you have a fault, that pipework will become, potentially, live.
It would have anyway - with potential difference.

Plastic Water Supply Pipe
IR Test between the copper (tap/pipe) if it is there and the MET.
If it's more than 22KΩ don't bond, and if it's less than 22 KΩ it needs bonding.
It will be <22k&#937;.
 
Sponsored Links
consider it supplementary bonding.
I only meant that as it's easier to understand what it does in equalising potential difference.

In order to establish if the water service were not now an extraneous conductive part it would be necessary to disconnect it from all of the above mentioned parts to test.

I assume 544.1.2 states what it does is because the disconnection for testing is not going to be done and the regulations still consider that the pipe may be liable to introduce a potential because it is still connected to all of the above mentioned parts.

If anyone else thinks differently perhaps they will say. i'm sure they will.

But if RCD protected? (still a lot to get in me nut!!)
That is not a consideration for main bonding.


Either way - 544.1.2 says to connect the bonding.
 
Cheers for the pointers EFL.

Get conflicting opinions at times. I either need to get me nose in the BGB more. Or get out more!
 
I thought the lead pipe was bonded as it had a long run in the ground (where as the copper pipe wont be in the ground)?!
That's correct but the regulations state the bonding shall be connected as suggested.
No, it's not correct.

The lead pipe is earthed because it has a long run in the ground, and that's why it would need to be bonded.
 
Which talks about main bonding to services entering the building, not metallic parts running through the building.


It is still connected to -
boiler inc. cpcs., CH inc. valves inc. cpcs., gas pipe inc. bonding, MET,
So basically you want a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If it's only "earthed" because you connect a cpc to it then intrinsically it is not an extraneous-conductive-part.


consider it supplementary bonding.
But we aren't talking about supplementary bonding, and there is no indication that this location requires it.


It will be <22k&#937;.
And why would that be?
 
Just bond it to where the pipe turns to copper.
How do you know that the copper at that point is an extraneous-conductive-part?

I know it most certainly isn't but without going to in-depth discussions with the op about why MPB is carried out and why it may not need doing I advised him to do what 99% of electricians would do who don't have an ounce of engineering judgement.
I would personally enjoy a debate with an NIC inspector who had said that bonding to the main water is required regardless of the material make-up of the incoming pipe.
No doubt someone will be along in a minute to mention about the conducting properties of water with TDS in it !
 
In order to establish if the water service were not now an extraneous conductive part it would be necessary to disconnect it from all of the above mentioned parts to test.
Indeed you would, for it cannot be an e-c-p if you've connected it to the electrical installation.


I assume 544.1.2 states what it does is because the disconnection for testing is not going to be done and the regulations still consider that the pipe may be liable to introduce a potential because it is still connected to all of the above mentioned parts.
How can it be considered to be introducing a potential when what you've done is to connect it to the electrical installation which by definition it must not be part of for it to be an e-c-p?

That is not a consideration for main bonding.
So first you want a self-fulfilling prophecy, and then you want it both ways.
consider it supplementary bonding.


Either way - 544.1.2 says to connect the bonding.
No it doesn't.
 
I know it most certainly isn't
Then you know it almost certainly does not require bonding.


but without going to in-depth discussions with the op about why MPB is carried out and why it may not need doing I advised him to do what 99% of electricians would do who don't have an ounce of engineering judgement.
Says it all, really, doesn't it.


No doubt someone will be along in a minute to mention about the conducting properties of water with TDS in it !
This is a UK potable water supply - it's not going to have a high level.
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top