Electrician upset with inspection

Status
Not open for further replies.

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Energize said:
If the black iron gas pipe is bonded, does the CSST still require bonding?

Yes

I am not familiar with this product, but I assume it connects to the black iron with metal fittings. Is this correct?

Yes

Not sure I understand the reasoning for the separate bonding requirements.

The product has developed leaks in the past, there have been lawsuits.

The manufacturers have decided the problem was lack of bonding and now have specific bonding requirements that exceed the NEC.

My position is this 'extra' electrical work should be paid for by the gas fitter contractor doing the job.
 

hillbilly

Senior Member
Man that's some funny stuff (the jokes I mean) .
First time that I've laughed out loud (LOL :roll: ) in a while.

Ever notice how there is a lack of good jokes for a spell and then .....:D

Keep it coming.

steve
 
dlhoule said:
lpelectric, If you worked in the great State of Michigan, where Licensing is required to do electrical work, you wouldn't get that kind of work to inspect.
Well, okay, maybe the occasional HO and the fly by nights who usually do not stay around.:grin:

I was an EDM applications engineer for 20 years... most tool and die shops, mold shops... and a lot of the scariest wiring I've ever seen was in Michigan.
 
There are some interesting developments regarding the usuage of CSST in NYS.
The City of Peekskill has just recently (Dec 12th) won the permission from NYS to ban the use of CSST for installation in their city.
This of course has led the manufacturers to debate the decision with NY.
Yesterday there was a conference call with many people involved.
to keep a long story short, I will just mention a portion of what happened.

1. There is going to be another meeting set up, as the manufacturer and their engineers/consultants could not answer all of the questions put forth by the participants - it was somewhat gratifying to see that they did not have answers for the myriad of questions put forth. (there were a few attorneys involved for the state, local city and the manufacturer)
- this is obviously going to be a very big deal for the manufacturers, and in part of the conversation, NY mentioned they are going to make some decision very soon as to how the resolve is going to be.
2. My guess as to what may happen - if the manufacturers cannot come up with better installation instructions and scientific proof of what they are proposing to do with those instructions, NY is either going to ban the installation statewide or put a moratorium on the installation until such proof can be had.
3. There was also discussion to the effect that the installation instructions - code wise will be so stringent that the gas installers will not install the CSST as it would be more difficult than installing black pipe.


One thing that did come out of the meeting is a temporary solution for electrical installers involved with CSST.
The state provided a solution that is different than what is printed in our new (just instituted a week ago) code. They are going to delete the references in our new code books altogether.


If the State determines that CSST can be installed safely, there may also be an emergency bulletin sent out that would require all previous installations of the CSST to be brought up to the current code that is developed.

So, we shall see, probably by April (my guess) what the results will be.
I can tell you that I expect more attorneys will be sitting in the next meeting, as this (my opinion) could potentially be the "beginning of the end" of CSST.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Thanks for passing that along Pierre it was interesting. :smile:

Pierre C Belarge said:
there may also be an emergency bulletin sent out that would require all previous installations of the CSST to be brought up to the current code that is developed.

How would that work and who would be picking up the cost?

I am not even sure that would be legal.

Not busting your chops, just curious.:smile:
 

Energize

Senior Member
Location
Milky Way Galaxy
I have tried to load a photbucket and a PDF version to here, but no luck.

Here is the website for the PDF installation instructions for Gatite CSST

On page 67 are the instructions for bonding the system. States there you only have to bond it at one location, and that can be on the black iron pipe. Even has a sketch.

Where am I missing the requirement of separate bond to the CSST?

http://www.gastite.com/include/languages/english/downloads/pdfs/DIGuide2008.pdf
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Energize said:
Where am I missing the requirement of separate bond to the CSST?

You not, you found it. :smile:

The NEC does not require what is shown on page 67.

The NEC allows the gas piping to be bonded by the EGC to the equipment that might energize it.

So if you have a gas furnace with a 15 amp circuit that 14 AWG with that circuit is all the NEC requires.

See 250.104(B)
 

Energize

Senior Member
Location
Milky Way Galaxy
iwire said:
You not, you found it. :smile:

The NEC does not require what is shown on page 67.

The NEC allows the gas piping to be bonded by the EGC to the equipment that might energize it.

So if you have a gas furnace with a 15 amp circuit that 14 AWG with that circuit is all the NEC requires.

See 250.104(B)


Thanks again
 

EBFD6

Senior Member
Location
MA
iwire said:
The product has developed leaks in the past, there have been lawsuits.

The manufacturers have decided the problem was lack of bonding and now have specific bonding requirements that exceed the NEC.


Maybe it's just me, but how does lack of bonding cause the tubing to spring a leak?

That's like saying " you blew the head gasket on your engine because the air pressure wasn't set properly in your rear tire!", the two seem totaly unrelated to me.

But the again I could be wrong. It's happened before.........once!:grin:
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
EBFD6 said:
Maybe it's just me, but how does lack of bonding cause the tubing to spring a leak?

That's like saying " you blew the head gasket on your engine because the air pressure wasn't set properly in your rear tire!", the two seem totaly unrelated to me.

But the again I could be wrong. It's happened before.........once!:grin:
It doesn't just spring a leak. When lightning travels through it it will split the gas pipe and cause fires. Bonding supposedly gives it a safe path to ground.
 

EBFD6

Senior Member
Location
MA
Dennis Alwon said:
It doesn't just spring a leak. When lightning travels through it it will split the gas pipe and cause fires. Bonding supposedly gives it a safe path to ground.
OK, that makes more sense. This stuff doesn't sound too safe, maybe the engineers need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a product that doesn't have a massive failure when present with a fairly common problem (lightning strikes).
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
I don't think that the problem was the lightning current traveling on or through the CSST line because if that were the case, then a bond at the supply manifold would not solve the problem. It is my understanding that there were small "side flashes" that arced between the CSST and nearby conductive objects that were connected to the electrical grounding system. The bond should help to keep the potential of the everything connected to the electrical grounding system low enough to prevent side flashes.
Don
 
iwire said:
Thanks for passing that along Pierre it was interesting. :smile:



How would that work and who would be picking up the cost?

I am not even sure that would be legal.

Not busting your chops, just curious.:smile:


I do not think you are busting my chops, actually these are good questions, certainly ones I would ask myself.

As far as being legal, I am far from being a "legal mind", but I am sure that NY has their attorneys on it.

The final result the State delivers is going to be interesting. I am sure they are concerned with who should bear the cost. I cannot say much more, as I do not really know much more. I am sure that we will find out fairly quickly as the State is very concerned about this. One of the people involved did say they have been in discussion in regards to this topic for quite some time now.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
Minuteman said:
I have an idea... Why not just make the CSST manufacturers pay to install lightning protection on ALL houses where CSST has been installed?

CSST Settlement Link

What does the Proposed Settlement provide?
The Proposed Settlement provides Payment Vouchers for Settlement Class Members who qualify for relief. These Vouchers defray the costs of buying and installing a lightning protection system or completing the bonding and grounding of certain systems in a structure.

Settlement Class Members who have CSST manufactured by Settling Defendants will be entitled to a Payment Voucher that can be used either toward the installation of a Lightning Protection System or for the completion of Bonding and Grounding. Payment Voucher values range from $200 to $2,000 for the installation of a Lightning Protection System to $75 to $160 for the completion of Bonding and Grounding. To determine what Lightning Density Zone the property is located in, visit the Find Your Lightning Density Zone page.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top