"Richard Conway" wrote in message
...

Hi all,

On Friday I will be fitting a new bath which for reasons unrelated to this
thread (well, not entirely I suppose) will be made of steel.

Our bathroom currently has no equipotential bonding, and I am aware that
in order to comply with the regs I will either need to install
equipotential bonding or upgrade my installation to meet the 17th edition
regs.

Now, I'm aware that there is probably more to the 17th Edition than simply
sticking some RCBOs in my CU, but I was wondering if that would be enough
to nagate the need for me to install equipotential bonding.

At the moment, my CU is a split load that consists of the following
(please bear in mind it's a small terraced house):

RCD Side
Whole house sockets (ring)
Kitchen Sockets (ring)
Oven (radial)
Immersion Heater (radial)

Non-RCD side
Upstairs lighting (including bathroom fan)
Downstairs lighting

Now, I understand the dangers of putting either of the lighting circuits
on the RCD side, but what if I replced them with RCBOs? Would this be
enough to not require equipotential bonding as there would be no circuits
in the house without RCD protection.

Any thoughts/opinions welcomed.

Thanks,
Richard.

If you are installing a bath and not touching the electrics then there is no
*requirement* to add supplementary equipotential bonding.

If you are also modifying electrics then the modifications will have to be
to the 17th edition (which requires rcds in bathrooms); there is no option
to do it to 16th standards instead, assuming this has not being in progress
for a few years. But even so, it is unlikely that a steel bath would need
to be bonded as it is unlikely to be an extraneous conductive part. The
water pipes supplying it or waste away from it if either are metal might be
extraneous and need bonding.

Why do you think it needs to be bonded?

Regards
Bruce