Bonding wire on flexible gas line

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Texhunter7

Member
Location
Denver Colorado
Looking at some residential work and the plumber said he needed a # 6 copper on his Flexible Gas Line in the house where ever he uses the gas flex line to bond the gas line back to the service in case of a lighting strike. I have not ever heard of this has anyone else?
 
If you are refering to CSST then it is covered in most 2006 USBC and 2006 Int. Gas Codes. You would not need to do it everywhere CSST is used...only at one point ( in VA under the USBC we have to do it where it enters the building ) and with the 6AWG back to the GES.

For example "wardflex" says you can bond to a fitting at one of the connectors ( never the CSST itself) or at gas hard conduit at the point it changes over to CSST, at the manafold or the manufacture even allows you to put in a small piece of hard steel to use a standard pipe clamp as you would on a water line....

Check with your local AHJ to see if they want it at specific location.
 
Texhunter7 said:
Looking at some residential work and the plumber said he needed a # 6 copper on his Flexible Gas Line in the house where ever he uses the gas flex line to bond the gas line back to the service in case of a lighting strike. I have not ever heard of this has anyone else?
Click to expand...

Then tell him to put one on his flexible gas line, Or pay up :grin:
 
wbalsam1 said:
Here's the newly drafted text for NY State's take on CSST bonding requirements, and what we've added. This is expected to pass the Code's Council tomorrow. :)

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/code/CSST.htm
Click to expand...


Well..........back to the drawing board. Somehow, non-CSST piping was included in the language being amended. This was not the original intent.....( a camel is a horse designed by a committee):grin:
So obviously the Codes Council rejected the language based on testimony supporting the fact that bonding and grounding of non-CSST piping has already been accomplished by virtue of the egc of the branch circuit supplying the appliance.
Another meeting will take place to remove the present wording and to refocus on the objective...to properly bond CSST.
(It's hard to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp when you're up to your butt in alligators) :grin:
Stay tuned.....Government at work........
 
wbalsam1 said:
Well..........back to the drawing board. Somehow, non-CSST piping was included in the language being amended. This was not the original intent.....( a camel is a horse designed by a committee):grin:
So obviously the Codes Council rejected the language based on testimony supporting the fact that bonding and grounding of non-CSST piping has already been accomplished by virtue of the egc of the branch circuit supplying the appliance.
Another meeting will take place to remove the present wording and to refocus on the objective...to properly bond CSST.
(It's hard to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp when you're up to your butt in alligators) :grin:
Stay tuned.....Government at work........
Click to expand...


Fred
I am glad that it did not pass the session last week. There was wording drafted by the committee weeks ago and somehow that wording was changed without the "committee" about 2 weeks ago.

As you well know from last weeks meeting and the results, there are a tremendous amount of people across NYS who are unhappy with the proposed text/idea of the gas pipe bonding.
If the code language does not go through the proper method of "design", then what is the sense of writing codes?
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Fred
I am glad that it did not pass the session last week. There was wording drafted by the committee weeks ago and somehow that wording was changed without the "committee" about 2 weeks ago.

As you well know from last weeks meeting and the results, there are a tremendous amount of people across NYS who are unhappy with the proposed text/idea of the gas pipe bonding.
If the code language does not go through the proper method of "design", then what is the sense of writing codes?
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. What a mess! :)
 
Don't do it!!! Bad Ju Ju!!!

Don't do it!!! Bad Ju Ju!!!

stickboy1375 said:
This usually only applies to CSST, but its not a NEC issue, so make sure the plumber is hiring you to meet his code not yours.
In other words, dont do it for free...

An article to get you up to speed.
http://www.toolbase.org/pdf/techinv/csst_lightningconcerns.pdf
Click to expand...
This product has inherent problems that have been clearly documented by industry. The manufacturers know they have a serious problem with the tubing melting due to high resistance when ther are nearby lightning strikes and they are trying to cover their collectiove butts by requiring this hokety bonding set up. DO NOT EXPOSE YOURSELF TO THE LIABILITY!!!!! Read up on the lousy product and you will see it is now being described, accurately I think, as the plumbiong industry equivalent to aluuminum branch circuit wiring!!!!!!!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top