Gastite bonding

Status
Not open for further replies.
Question to M.D.

Question to M.D.

Hi: So that I can better understand where your perspective is, let me take this angle: You're saying, in essence that nothing in copper plumbing pipe standards says anything about bonding plumbing pipes to the grounding electrode system; nothing that comes with rebar states it needs bonding, nothing that comes with steel refers to it, nor well casings, wire mesh for swimming pools, or even the steel found in cowbarns,etc. And even though that stuff hardly qualifies as electrical equipment, electricians go ahead and bond it all to the GES or in ways to make it electrically continuous. They do it all because the NEC tells them to. But because the gas piping rules aren't glaringly obvious or haven't become ingrained in standard practice, somehow the "it's not my job" attitude has crept in. So therefore its not enforceable except through the text of 250.104(B)?
In NY State, the Code Enforcement Official is the AHJ. (see definition in 2005 NEC) Thank goodness for that. I wouldn't want an electrical inspector AHJ around who failed to see the importance of following tested and approved methods. There are no rules being made up here by the inspector, just the AHJ doing his job. When one is surprised by new things it is natural for fear to take the lead response. When this whole thing plays itself out, I'll bet you it'll go through the clarification process just like so many other manufacturers' better mouse traps have done.
I do not support the gas piping industry in any way whatsoever. In fact I'm embarrased by the lack of integrity and training some (most) of the local installers have.
 
wbalsam1 said:
In NY State, the Code Enforcement Official is the AHJ. (see definition in 2005 NEC) Thank goodness for that. I wouldn't want an electrical inspector AHJ around who failed to see the importance of following tested and approved methods. .
Click to expand...

This is amazing!!
 
M. D. said:
Bond it because you want to, bond it because someone is paying you to, but if you do ,it is not because the N.E.C. requires you to.
Click to expand...
My opinion - bond it because the next time a house burns because of lightning and CSST, then the litigious types will be after someone to sue. It'll be the gasman or the EC, or maybe both, but the manufacturers require CSST to be bonded, and if it isn't, then that is someone's fault. The manufacturers of CSST wont get caught - they've done their bit by issuing instructions. The court really wont care too much what the AHJ says, or what the NEC or any other regulatory body requires, 'cos the judge will have the manufacturers instruction sheet in his hand (plus section L of the above-mentioned judgment) and thats the trump card.
 
To Cpal

To Cpal

Nothing particularly amazing when you consider that in 95% of the 880 towns, villages and cities in NY there is not a requirement for certification or any other demonstrable evidence of competence for electrical inspectors. Just a few cities and towns require certification of third-party elec. inspectors working within their boundaries. The condition exists where the private companies compete for the inspection dollar and routinely overlook code requirements. It is possible for unscrupulous contractors and other persons undertaking projects to "shop" for a favorable opinion when presented with costly demands from an ethical electrical inspector. And it goes on! Now that's AMAZING! Private investigators, masseurs, barbers, fire alarm installers and even persons cutting fingernails are licensed, but not electrical inspectors. Know why? Because their own companies don't want to pay them the additional wages that the professionalism would demand; and the state legislature doesn't take it seriously,and hasn't for years. Until things change, I wouldn't want private AHJ's in control of public safety. You're right it is Amazing!
 
Last edited:
wbalsam1 said:
Hi: 110.3(B) is about equipment.
Click to expand...

Yes it is.

It is about electric equipment.

Per 90.2(A) the NEC applies to electric equipment.

Gastite is not electric equipment.

We bond black iron gas or copper water because the NEC tells us to, not because the makers of either of those products tells us to.

Sheetrock is a listed product can the electrical inspector give the electrician a red tag based on 110.3(B) of the NEC if the Sheetrock was not installed by the rockers correctly?

M.D. said:
Bond it because you want to, bond it because someone is paying you to, but if you do ,it is not because the N.E.C. requires you to.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%
 
dbuckley said:
My opinion - bond it because the next time a house burns because of lightning and CSST, then the litigious types will be after someone to sue. It'll be the gasman or the EC, or maybe both, but the manufacturers require CSST to be bonded, and if it isn't, then that is someone's fault.
Click to expand...
dbuckley, I agree and am also very concerned, having learned about this problem, I will now exceede the requirment of 250.104 and start bonding Gas piping with a # 6 regardless of the presence csst.

A question Scott raised was the fact that as an electrician he has not been notified, Has any of us been notified ?? I have not. I think I have not because it is not the NEC that has been modified but the instructions for installing a gas pipe/tube

Here it is again I hope it works

http://www.ci.owatonna.mn.us/services/buildings/Gastite_TB2007.pdf
 
dbuckley said:
My opinion - bond it because the next time a house burns because of lightning and CSST, then the litigious types will be after someone to sue. It'll be the gasman or the EC, or maybe both, but the manufacturers require CSST to be bonded, and if it isn't, then that is someone's fault. The manufacturers of CSST wont get caught - they've done their bit by issuing instructions. .
Click to expand...


You could not be more wrong.

The manufacturer would be # 1 on the court documents because they will have the deepest pockets. They would not walk away unscathed.
Even if you bond it as they want you will still be sued. I would bet my kids on it.

You are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. :rolleyes:
This is obviously a dangerous product and it is putting people at risk.

Just read the bulletin. it actually says "Proper bonding and grounding may reduce the risk of arcing and related damage"


That is a confidence booster. :rolleyes:
 
to Iwire

to Iwire

Section 110.3(B) requires compliance with the installation and use instructions which are always included with products that are listed and labeled. In many areas, the code actually specifies the use of listed products. Other areas, the code requires products to be listed, labeled, etc. The safety standards whether amended or not, the installation codes and methods, whether amended or not, and the quality of installation and the quality of inspection all work together to produce an effective system. None of these components are exclusive of the other. A strong and close working relationship between or among all the parties, i.e., product standards development organizations, installation codes writing organizations, installers and inspectors, is paramount to the end use being safe. To make the argument that gas piping bonding requirements is reduced to an issue of pointing fingers for installation responsibility, is IMO, a gross distraction of the intent of the electrical standard for effective bonding. New standards can occur at any time. So can modifications to existing standards. Many standards come together to create the NEC. See Annex A, for example.

This is quite a thread. Reminds me of the old saying "A Camel is a horse designed by a committee."
 
wbalsam, There are many appliances that can and will be installed which burn gas that do not require an electrical permit. I am not qualified to install gas piping so I will not be reading the installation instructions for such piping nor will I be pulling a permit to install it. If I am hired ,and an electrical permit is required to bond , then I will refer to the instructions supplied by the qualified gas fitter,& applicable NEC codes,I believe ,250.70

If I am not contacted how on earth would I know that csst has been installed. Sure I'll see some of it being installed ,but certainly not all of it.

The electric code, as has been pointed out "covers the installation of electrical conductors, equipment, and raceways; signling and communications conductors, equipment......"

Is it your contention that the installation of csst or any other gas pipe falls under the scope of the NEC??
 
wbalsam1 said:
Section 110.3(B) requires compliance with the installation and use instructions which are always included with products that are listed and labeled. In many areas, the code actually specifies the use of listed products. Other areas, the code requires products to be listed, labeled, etc. The safety standards whether amended or not, the installation codes and methods, whether amended or not, and the quality of installation and the quality of inspection all work together to produce an effective system. None of these components are exclusive of the other. A strong and close working relationship between or among all the parties, i.e., product standards development organizations, installation codes writing organizations, installers and inspectors, is paramount to the end use being safe. To make the argument that gas piping bonding requirements is reduced to an issue of pointing fingers for installation responsibility, is IMO, a gross distraction of the intent of the electrical standard for effective bonding. New standards can occur at any time. So can modifications to existing standards. Many standards come together to create the NEC. See Annex A, for example.

This is quite a thread. Reminds me of the old saying "A Camel is a horse designed by a committee."
Click to expand...

good luck with this argument, i've tried it before(although not so eloquently!!)

to MD (an others)- i would ask.... you are making an argument based on the fact that "i don't know about it" when , in this case, you do. you also say the NEC does not cover it (it may or may not, i won't argue with you over that)
now the question- what will you do NOW that you DO KNOW about it????

i would submit that it is all of OUR (builder,inspector,contractor,electrician, sheetrocker,plumber,ect,ect,ect,ect,ect,)responsibility to build the SAFEST BUILDING POSSIBLE.
the reason i have a problem with anyone using the "it's not my job" argument is simple-
who is more at fault??? the installer (of ANY item, in ANY building) that makes an error and forgets or installs something incorrectly-or the person who sees it, and KNOWS IT'S WRONG,YET DOES NOTHING ABOUT IT????? everyone makes mistakes, but to see, and ignore is just wrong
if a sheetrocker sees a missing plate over a conductor or plumbing and does not replace it- i (personally) hold him more responsible than the installer who missed it. (code or no code!!!)
is it his "job"??? NO.
should he have corrected it? YES.
IMHO only....
 
Last edited:
wbalsam1 said:
Nothing particularly amazing when you consider that in 95% of the 880 towns, villages and cities in NY there is not a requirement for certification or any other demonstrable evidence of competence for electrical inspectors. Just a few cities and towns require certification of third-party elec. inspectors working within their boundaries. The condition exists where the private companies compete for the inspection dollar and routinely overlook code requirements. It is possible for unscrupulous contractors and other persons undertaking projects to "shop" for a favorable opinion when presented with costly demands from an ethical electrical inspector. And it goes on! Now that's AMAZING! Private investigators, masseurs, barbers, fire alarm installers and even persons cutting fingernails are licensed, but not electrical inspectors. Know why? Because their own companies don't want to pay them the additional wages that the professionalism would demand; and the state legislature doesn't take it seriously,and hasn't for years. Until things change, I wouldn't want private AHJ's in control of public safety. You're right it is Amazing!
Click to expand...


What you have posted here is mostly true...and unfortunate.
I will say that our (I am one of the principles) Electrical Inspection company strives to be one that pays the inspector for his knowledge. We accept new inspectors with only all three certifications.
And you are so correct that a contractor can use the service of an electrical inspection service that is especially "good" to them...sad that more is not done about that.
 
Mayjong I have stated what I will do. I will figure in the cost of bonding the gas pipe regardless of the presence of csst. The work I do is mostly reidential, I don't think it will add more than $100.00 to the average job that I do. If I am hired to install unrelated electrical wiring in an existing dwelling and notice this crap is installed improperly as I see it , keep in mind I am not qualified and have not been trained to install it, I will pass on the knowledge I have of this issue . I have saved the latest bulletins for just such purpose , should they then choose not to hire me (pay me) to bond it , what would you have me do? Am I obligated to install the bonding and pay for it too? Am I obligated to report them to the gas inspector? What exactly would you have me do?? Do I, as someone not qualified to install this stuff keep checking in to see if the requirements for installation have changed? Do I follow the plumbers/ gas fitters around town and when I see this yellow crap carried into the dwelling write down the address and run to the building department?

I will do what seems reasonable to me, I will bond gas piping beyond 250.104(2)(b) when I am hired to do so , on a service change I will figure in the cost of running a #6 to bond the gas pipe, when I see this csst stuff I will look to see if it is bonded if it is not, I will encourage those who own the building to have it bonded by me or any other qualified person.
 
There is a web page,http://www.pddocs.com/csst/faq.aspx#Q23, with the conditions of the settlement for a class action suit brought against the cssp manufacturers. It explains the provisions for vouchers with a value of from $200-$2000 for the installation of a lightning protection system and $75-$160 for bonding and grounding. This would be for existing installations. Apparently if it's a new installation you're on your own. Nice,huh. :mad:

I'm also curious why the gastite installation instructions do not mention anything about installing a lightning protection system. The class action settlement calls for lightning protection and bonding. As Cpal said in an earlier post this opens a can of worms.(Hope I quoted you right. Sorry if I didn,t).
 
wbalsam1 said:
Section 110.3(B) requires compliance with the installation and use instructions which are always included with products that are listed and labeled.
Click to expand...

wbalsam1 I see your a 'pick and choose' kind of inspector. You pick and choose which sections of the NEC you like.

Well I will try once more.

The NEC, and therefore 110.3(B) applies only to electric equipment.

It does not apply to gas fired lawn tractors, the pocket fisherman or the installation of Gastite.

I will not agree to disagree....you are simply mistaken in your belief that 110.3(B) applies to every piece of equipment ever tested by a NRTL.
 
iwire said:
wbalsam1I will not agree to disagree....you are simply mistaken in your belief that 110.3(B) applies to every piece of equipment ever tested by a NRTL.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more.
 
M. D. said:
Mayjong I have stated what I will do. I will figure in the cost of bonding the gas pipe regardless of the presence of csst. The work I do is mostly reidential, I don't think it will add more than $100.00 to the average job that I do. If I am hired to install unrelated electrical wiring in an existing dwelling and notice this crap is installed improperly as I see it , keep in mind I am not qualified and have not been trained to install it, I will pass on the knowledge I have of this issue . I have saved the latest bulletins for just such purpose , should they then choose not to hire me (pay me) to bond it , what would you have me do? Am I obligated to install the bonding and pay for it too? Am I obligated to report them to the gas inspector? What exactly would you have me do?? Do I, as someone not qualified to install this stuff keep checking in to see if the requirements for installation have changed? Do I follow the plumbers/ gas fitters around town and when I see this yellow crap carried into the dwelling write down the address and run to the building department?

I will do what seems reasonable to me, I will bond gas piping beyond 250.104(2)(b) when I am hired to do so , on a service change I will figure in the cost of running a #6 to bond the gas pipe, when I see this csst stuff I will look to see if it is bonded if it is not, I will encourage those who own the building to have it bonded by me or any other qualified person.
Click to expand...

MD- sorry, didn't connect you to your previous post... not aiming at you, just the concept... and yes, i would say your solution is reasonable.
i'm the last inspector anyone would accuse of being a "cowboy" (not saying you would, just giving you some background) and i am an advocate of enforcing code, but sometimes it seems (to me) that we (builders/inspectors/contractors) spend so much effort in figuring out WHO should do things that we forget WHY we are doing them. and i think the WHY tends to be much more important than the WHO.... and this drives me a little batty!
know what i mean?
 
electricmanscott said:
You could not be more wrong.

The manufacturer would be # 1 on the court documents because they will have the deepest pockets.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong, the deepest pockets approach works well for things like the class action thats just happened, but you have to be able to show some cause, usually fault or negligence.

On the other hand, for someone whose house has just been fritzed, to their homeowner's insurance company, a licensed professional with insurance who failed to follow instructions is a trivially easy target, so easy it would probably be settled rather than litigated. The homeowner's insurance company doesn't need to take on the whole of the world, it just wants to not give away money. Low hanging fruit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top