John Rumm wrote:
Richard Conway wrote:

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.

A new metal bath in unlikely to make the situation worse...

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.

As long as you main equipotential bonding is up to scratch then you
could replace the lighting MCB with a 30mA/6A trip RCBO. (I am presuming
the downstairs lighting circuit does not enter the bathroom).



The main bonding is another issue I've meant to ask about in the past.
The incoming gas pipework is connected just after the meter, but the
water supply pipework isn't connected at all - this appears to be
because the pipework immediately before and after the stopcock is
plastic and goes all the way up to the loft to serve the header tanks.
The original copper pipework is then T'd off this plastic and comes back
down to serve the bathroom/kitchen.

The most sensible way I can see of bonding this would be in the loft -
but that isn't really feasible as there's no easy route back to the meter.

Any thoughts?