Bonding to separate system

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

inspector 102

Senior Member
Location
Northern Indiana
I have a building that has been added to with a fire wall creating 2 separate buildings. A new service was added to the addition with grounding to the building steel and foundation reinforcement. The question is the fire sprinkler system serves both areas and is alreay bonded to the original service. Should the 2nd service also bond to the sprinkler or not to avoid any conflicts? The sprinkler has fire stops at penetrations to maintain integrity.
 
inspector 102 said:
I have a building that has been added to with a fire wall creating 2 separate buildings. A new service was added to the addition with grounding to the building steel and foundation reinforcement. The question is the fire sprinkler system serves both areas and is alreay bonded to the original service. Should the 2nd service also bond to the sprinkler or not to avoid any conflicts? The sprinkler has fire stops at penetrations to maintain integrity.
Click to expand...

I actually think both the fire code and the electrical codse are silent on this issue. The sprinkler system is permitted to be a common system. One would hope that the building was served by two sprinkler risers, one for each tenancy.
I don't see the immediate harm in bonding the system at two locations to the grounding electrode system. This way if one building was being worked on, the other building would continue to bond the system. Just a thought.
 
250.104(B) Other Metal Piping

The AHJ needs to interpret "that is likely to become energized". If the interpretation is that the sprinkler piping may become energized, then it needs to be bonded to both services in my humble opinion. Read the rest of the section to determine how this can be accomplished.
 
metal water piping

metal water piping

crossman said:
250.104(B) Other Metal Piping

The AHJ needs to interpret "that is likely to become energized". If the interpretation is that the sprinkler piping may become energized, then it needs to be bonded to both services in my humble opinion. Read the rest of the section to determine how this can be accomplished.
Click to expand...

Metal water [sprinkler] piping is metal water piping...how does it become 'other metal piping' thats needs an AHJ interpretation?
 
I guess the AHJ will have to make that determination too.

Anybody got thoughts? Is fire sprinkler piping considered to be water piping as detailed in 250.104(A)?
 
Thanks for the replies. Since this is one tenant, with one riser that is already bonded to the electrical service from the original building, I do not think an additional bond is needed. I never thought about the hangars providing a bond to the building steel though. The building steel would not provide a bond since the masonry wall dividies the framework, but a new electrode has been bonded to the new steel. Again, thanks
 
crossman said:
I guess the AHJ will have to make that determination too.

Anybody got thoughts? Is fire sprinkler piping considered to be water piping as detailed in 250.104(A)?
Click to expand...
The fire authority in my area will NOT allow bonding to the fire sprinkler system. Period, end of story, it's not open for discussion.
 
Chapter 8 of NFPA 24 does not allow the sprinkler pipe to be used as an electrode but it would still require bonding per 250 .104
 
24-16 Log #CP1 AUT-PRI​
​
Final Action: Accept
(10.6.8)​

________________________________________________________________​
SUBMITTER:​
​
​
Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems​

RECOMMENDATION:​
​
​
Reword Section 10.6.8 as follows:
10.6.8 In no case shall the underground piping be used as a grounding
electrode for electrical systems.​

SUBSTANTIATION:​
​
​
Based upon input from NEC staff to ensure safety and
coordination between the NEC, NFPA 13 and NFPA 24.​

COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION: Accept
NUMBER ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 23
BALLOT RESULTS:​
​
​
Affirmative: 21​

BALLOT NOT RETURNED:​
​
​
2 BROWN, SALWAN​

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top