CSST, Concerns over Lightning Strikes

Status
Not open for further replies.
I did not read the whole report , but I found it interesting that they did not test this "stuff" against the effects of lightnig , before they set it free on the open market. If there is a "shame" to be assessed it should be leveled at those who did not consider a very common event here on earth and what effects ,if any, it would have on a very thin tube, transporting a very flameable gas. ......I think I smell a money rat
http://www.lightningsafetyalliance.com/documents/p379%20Goodson%20gasline%20&%20lightning%20.pdf
 
One more thing I found interesting , ...It takes 15 times more energy to make the same size hole in a 1/2" black iron pipe than it does csst . This is also in the report I linked to.
 

For anyone who has it ,.. time is running out for submitting a claim


In March 2007, the four defendants in the Class Action suit filed in the Circuit Court of Clark County
Arkansas reached a Settlement. Under the guidelines of the Settlement, owners of structures in the
U.S., in which CSST was installed prior to September 2006, can obtain vouchers to defray the cost of
mitigating the CSST hazard. Remedies identified by the settling parties include installing a lightning
protection system and/or making bonding and grounding connections to certain systems in a structure.
"Unfortunately, there hasn't been a lot of publicity given to this situation which is estimated to affect a
million or more homes," explained Bud VanSickle, executive director of the Lightning Protection
Institute in Maryville, MO. "Property owners have just a few short months to take advantage of these
vouchers. Whether property owners take advantage of the Settlement vouchers or not these folks have
a serious fire risk in their homes that needs to be addressed."
The deadline to enter a claim under the CSST Settlement is September 5, 2007. For more information
call 1-800-420-2916 or visit the website at http://www.csstsettlement.com.
Contact: Kim Loehr
804-314-8955 or LLpco@aol.com http://www.lightningsafetyalliance.com
SOURCE Lightning Safety Alliance
Click to expand...
​
​
​

 
In reading the report by the NAHB it was helpful to have the problem explained in this way: "The damage caused by indirect lightning strikes to these CSST systems is based on differences in electrical potential between parallel metallic pathways to ground which results in an arc between two imbalanced paths". This is a great way to understand and to be able to discuss with plumbers and electricians while gaining code compliance and enhanced safety. :smile:
 
Last edited:
and i just finished building a house that has this running from one end to the other!! and it's in the lightning capital of the world!!!

i assisted my gas contractor during the install and the fittings used at the joints are none metallic and joined together by two different methods, compression and heat. to properly bond the entire system each system tap would require a bond strap.

the gas service from the L.P. tank runs underground using the CSST material to the first gas regulator which reduces the pressure down to around two pounds per square inch. all the connections in this service pipe are none metallic and connected by melting the fittings together with a heatgun that heats the plastic to the melting point and they are quickly pushed together like pvc. there would have to be bond jumpers installed across each tap in this line. from the outside regulator galvanized pipe is run through the outside wall and up into the attic. the system runs through the attic and they install a low pressure regulator at each "appliance drop". these low pressure regulators reduce the pressure from two pounds down to "inches of water column" pressure to serve each appliance. these connections are held together with compression fittings similar to sealtite fittings. these taps would require bonding. another problem is the method of bonding the CSST since it's strength is due to it's corrigation and seems as though it would require something that would apply enough force without peircing the CSST skin.

this could become a big problem with it's installation, maybe cost prohibitive.

my only protection is i have a 26 guage metal roof!!! maybe that will act as a shield!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Charlie, csst is not allowed as flexible connection to an appliance,.. I'm almost certain of that, it sounds as if they connected to the appliances? If you do live in lightning central they will help with the cost of a lightning protection system.
 
Charlie, this was just installed?? like, 2007 just installed ? Id call the person who installed it find out what he installed and find out how it should have been installed. This problem was addressed in 2006 I hope he followed the instructions.
 
In this jurisdiction, in No. Va, they are requiring a #6 ground or bond (?) be run from the steel pipe manifold back to the service. Most plumbers, of course, leave no room on their manifold for a ground clamp, which is a pain. Some gas installations with csst have no steel pipe manifold, in which case the question becomes what kind of ground clamp is listed for very thin corrugated stainless steel with a plastic covering?
 
Last edited:
Csst

Csst

The local gas Co. called me last week stating they had begun installing a #6 ground from their CSST systems to the service ground electrode conductor and wanted to make sure they were not violating any codes.
 
fisherelectric said:
In this jurisdiction, in No. Va, they are requiring a #6 ground or bond (?) be run from the steel pipe manifold back to the service. Most plumbers, of course, leave no room on their manifold for a ground clamp, which is a pain. Some gas installations with csst have no steel pipe manifold, in which case the question becomes what kind of ground clamp is listed for very thin corrugated stainless steel with a plastic covering?
Click to expand...


Visit http://www.gastite.com/include/languages/english/downloads/pdfs/TB2007_01.pdf for proper bonding of CSST.
 
just my luck!!! day late and a dollar short!!! i've got a call into the administator to see if i can get into the class action suite?? thanks for all the information concerning this. after reading the court rulings and the very,very short claims period, i think there should be some other considerations. the method of advertising this class action suite should have been through the gas companies supplying the pertrolium product and include a flier in the bill!!! and since they are still selling this stuff, i would think the contractors would be informed about it's safety, and the building department would have red flagged any job??? i will call them in the morning??

my house's installation does not use this out to the appliance, but taps off the low pressure regulator located in the attic and drops down the wall using csst to a recessed junction box which serves an appliance. from that junction box out to the appliance a flexible armord hose is used. kind of runs through the attic and tee taps at each appliance..... with the regulator at each drop. i believe the main trunk line carrys about two or three pounds pressure and the regulators drop it down to inch pounds...

as i write this there's a good lightning storm going on outside!!
thanks again, i let you know the outcome,
charlie tuna
 
My latest issue of IAEI magazine tells us that the typical water pipe ground rod clamp has not been tested by UL for the purpose of bonding these gas lines. OK, so am I now in violation of NEC for using the clamp as suggested? Will I be taken off the hook once someone pays UL the $$ to test it?
 
tom,
you got no problem compaired to mine. i've got 180 gallons of L.P. in my back yard waiting to enter my attic space if my newly installed CSST gas line is damaged by lightning and i live in the highest area for strikes in the U.S.A..
i figured my gas/mechanical contractor was installing this material about the time the courts in Arkinsas was determining the "method of notification". which might have reached him though a trade magazine, except he and his son are "big time" into nascar racing, and i think he'd be reading his hobby's information. he is a very compitent contractor and does most of this county's gas work including the school board's work. the courts method of pubisizing this suite is rediculous and in no way informs the consumer directly and the time frame too short to get the information out and remove this product from the supply house shelves.

now, how can i reduce the possibility of a strike or flash?? do i bond it? but i can't bond it without U.L. approved fittings, a regular bond clamp could very well cause a rupture. this stuff if fragile, my insulating contractor had to sand some high foam off a wall and hit the CSST causing a pin hole that allowed the five pound leak pressure test to fail. i do not think (as an electrician) that this tubing could be "effectivily" bonded without damaging it. in other words, to get a proper connection, and be tight enough, the tubing would deform. the gas line from the main tank is plastic and connects to the main regulator which is metal and has galvanized pipe thru the block wall and then up into the attic where it adapts to CSST. i do not think(?) CSST effectivly bonds across the gas regulators in the attic(4). they are "somewhat" accessible --three are easy and one is a pain!!

now come the idea of lightning protection?? i have a new 26 gauge -50 year metal roof. how can this be accomplished without penatrating the roof or reducing it's warentee?? i have always heard that lightning protection systems must be installed properly or they can actually attract or increase the chance of a strike???
tuna
 
Charlie,
The bonding connection is made to the manifold and not to the CSST itself.
For attachment to the CSST gas piping system, a single bonding clamp must be attached to either a Gastite? brass fitting, a steel manifold or to any rigid pipe component. The corrugated stainless steel tubing portion of the gas piping system shall not be used as the point of attachment of the bonding conductor at any location along its length under any circumstances.
Click to expand...
The above is from Section 4.10 of this Gastite document. It also says that standard grounding clamps are suitable.​
Bonding jumpers shall be attached in an approved manner in accordance with NEC-2005 Article 250.70 and the point of attachment for the bonding jumper shall be accessible. Bonding/grounding clamps listed to UL 467 comply with this requirement
Click to expand...


Don​





 
i can handle that---#6 cu. connected to the galvanized pipe connected directly to the main gas service regulator with a standard galvanized ground clamp which i can access in the attic. then extend this #6 back to the main service ground terminal block. but then to be covered i've got to install a lightning protection system??? is that correct?? thanks, charlie
 
ptonsparky said:
My latest issue of IAEI magazine tells us that the typical water pipe ground rod clamp has not been tested by UL for the purpose of bonding these gas lines. OK, so am I now in violation of NEC for using the clamp as suggested? Will I be taken off the hook once someone pays UL the $$ to test it?
Click to expand...

Appleton has a clamp for both gas pipe and copper water pipe .

Type GC​
Zinc​
Use:​
Ground clamps for bare copper conductor. For
insulated or bare conductor wire, copper AWG #2
through #8. Clamp is reversible.​
Material/Finish:​
Casting?Zinc Die Cast Screws?Steel​
Applicable Third Party Standards:​
UL Standard: 467
CSA Standard: C22.2 No. 18
NEMA: FB-1
Fed. Spec: W-F-406D,
Type 5, Class 7, Style S​
Note:​
GC-5 is listed for use with 1/2? through 1? trade size
copper water pipe, steel galvanized water pipe and
metal gas pipe. UL requires the UL logo be removed on
our GC-5B because we provide plating of a material or
color different from natural zinc.​
 
the CSST manufacturers in the class action suite were not the manufacturer of the product i have in my new house!!! this product is manufactured by "tracpipe". i contacted them via their webb page and asked them their recommendation concerning lightning damage to this product. i also mentioned the class action suite in arkinsas.. three days passed and they called me. they said they were aware of the class action suite, but explained that from what they knew, no CSST systems "properly bonded" had failed from lightning. and told me to go via the internet to their webb page for an explaination of their recommendation --- which is a #6 bond installed from the incoming gas regulator back to the EGC of the service.. they explained to me that in Florida this is a standard practice so they are not concerned in Florida. the inspectors in my area know nothing about this, and inforce the national electrical code that gas systems will be grounded through their appliance grounding conductors as specified by the NEC. i can bond my system since i have access to the galvanized pipe entering my house in the attic and i also have a method to pull a #6 bond back to my service panel. i disagree with them that "it is standard practice" to run a #6 cu. bond wire back to the main equipment ground conductor... i intend to make an issue of this with my building department and if they agree with my thoughts i will persue it to the state of florida and maybe the state fire marshall' office.. you guys who do residential installs in the state of florida, i'd appreciate your expiriance in bonding gas systems in your areas??? thanks, tuna
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top