Main Earthing Conductor

[m4tty]

Nice one lee thanks for that mate

 

[m4tty]

If there are an non compliances noted on cert it won't affect their insurance in any way will it? Thanks

 

[Lee321]

If there are an non compliances noted on cert it won't affect their insurance in any way will it? Thanks

depends on their requirements.

its irelevant to you though.

your doing a EIC not a PIR only the PIR would describe the installation as unsatifactory where the EIC will only describe Departures

 

[ianmacd]

That would be a deviation. It will if they do not get a completion cert from LABC.

 

[kme]

+1

 

[Nicky Tesla]

You could do as Lee said above thats fine for me, but another possible route would be to TT the system instead. Are there floorboards under the stairs to put in a rod. Dont connect the original 6mm to the MET though otherwise it would still be TNCS

 

[Lee321]

nice one nicky i like that angle too

just extra cost for rcd pre db poss?

it might not even be a money issue to a degree having to redecorate is probably the off putter

 

[ADS]

If there are an non compliances noted on cert it won't affect their insurance in any way will it? Thanks

The problem you've got, Matty, is that you are signing the EIC stating that, as far as you know, it complies with BS7671.

On the EIC you also have to fill in the Earthing Conductor CSA.

Now, if the CSA doesn't comply with the Regs, then you can't note it as a 'departure' from BS 7671, as 'departures' on an EIC need to be equivalent or better than if they had complied.

 

[Lee321]

that sounds a little contradictive Ads! ?

if it doesn't comply its a depature surely??????????

 

[ADS]

Hi Lee,

What I meant was that if the 'Regs' say do something a particular way, but you do it different, then it has to be as 'safe' etc as if it had complied - this would be noted in the 'Details of Departures from BS7671' box

Departures from BS7671 that are noticed within an existing installation are put in the 'Comments on Existing Installation' box - but I don't think that would apply to an undersized 'Earthing Conductor' when changing a CU.

 

[Lee321]

yes i guess no definate answer i.e another 50/50 4 million page debate :Salute

 

[a1spark]

Regarding A1`s quote (from, if i`m not mistaken, the ESC`s "technical manual CD") ; The quote refers to another BUILDING; not an earth marshalling terminal within the same building; therefore I`m unsure of the relevance to the thread?

I generally notify DNO that EC is undersized, and inaccessible within the HED. I`ll terminate my 16mm (or whatever) as close as practicable, with enough slack to reach the PME terminal when DNO come out.

I`m still not finished reading up on this; so I`m not getting into the rest of it yet.......

THanks for taking the time out in order to quote from me kme, the relevance is in demostrating that a protective conductor and a Bonding conductor can be one and the same conductor as plumber has acurately described earlier.

 

[ADS]

Hi again, Matty,

Part P also comes into play here, mate.

If you check out Section 2, on page 13 - it's all worth re-reading, but in particular paragraph 2.2 - c.

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf

 

[Lee321]

what where you pointing to Ads?

that to comply with part p it needs comply with 7671?

because i didn't get that from reading your link!

i.e it does not mention it HAS to comply to 7671 to get building compliance

yes weirdly

?

 

[steptoe]

Hi Lee,What I meant was that if the 'Regs' say do something a particular way, but you do it different, then it has to be as 'safe' etc as if it had complied - this would be noted in the 'Details of Departures from BS7671' box

Departures from BS7671 that are noticed within an existing installation are put in the 'Comments on Existing Installation' box - but I don't think that would apply to an undersized 'Earthing Conductor' when changing a CU.

IMHO that would deffo be a comments on existing,

you are only changing the CU, NOT rewiring the house.

BUT,

it is also a departure, and the reasons given should be noted and as said previously a signed letter of receipt obtained.

Nicky, thumbs up for the first to suggest TT.

plumber almost had a thumbs up but then lost it again,

it is not a main earthing conductor, it is simply an EARTHING CONDUCTOR,

as far as my opinion on MET goes, it is where the earthing conductor terminates, whether it be in the CU or an ISCO, then that is the MET, and in a case like this I would feel it OK to have the MET remote from the CU and have the MEBs still terminate in the CU, simply note as a deviation, I dont think anyone here can give you a definitive or reasoned argument as to why that would be unacceptable given the situation you are working to.

we have to realise this is a simple domestic one dwelling/one building install, not a multi board/loadsa buildings comm/ind job we are on.

and,,,, we dont want to disturb great aunt hilda's flowery wallpaper agian.

 

[ianmacd]

THanks for taking the time out in order to quote from me kme, the relevance is in demostrating that a protective conductor and a Bonding conductor can be one and the same conductor as plumber has acurately described earlier.

Not in the case described and you realise that otherwise you would have commented on that too.

 

[tom1]

i was thinking about the tt earlier myself nick:Salute and looking in the book 4mm is ok unprotected so long as its not buried. could you do that matty

 

[ianmacd]

[quote name='Lee

 

[Lee321]

missed it headbang :Salute

its not on page 13 of my pdf view anyway!

 

[m4tty]

You could do as Lee said above thats fine for me, but another possible route would be to TT the system instead. Are there floorboards under the stairs to put in a rod. Dont connect the original 6mm to the MET though otherwise it would still be TNCS

It's a concrete floor mate. But thanks