Yellow CSST

[darkenergy]

As briefly as possible, (for me, you may reply to any degree/length you see fit ) based on the 2021 NFPA 54 (National fuel gas code) and the NEC 2017.

In your opinion, is it code compliant/non-code compliant to bond a gas line (propane or natural) by way of an approved pipe clamp in series (one continuous wire sized for 250.66 based on the largest service entrance conductor) to the GEC ( Grounding Electrode Conductor) on the way to the Grounding electrode?

As stated previously, I found a 'FACT SHEET'; rev.9-06-17 from the AGA (American gas Association), that seems to require… "A direct bond consists of the listed grounding clamp and separate conductor run from the gas piping to the grounding electrode system. Options include: electrical service enclosure, or grounded conductor at electrical service, or grounding electrode conductor, or any installed grounding electrode."

I can find no such requirement for a 'separate conductor' in the National fuel gas code mentioned. Section 7.12 through 7.12.5 Nor 'Annex A' of same, although A.7.12.5 in the Annex seemingly directly contradicts NEC 2017 250.52 (8) (B) not permitted for use as grounding electrodes, ( 3) metal underground gas piping systems. the Annex item specifically names underground in reference to lightning protection systems… Maybe the additional hundred dollars I just spent to have access to NFPA LINK in addition to the annual $175 NFPA dues will provide some answers… After I figure out how to work it.

Any insights or opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you, Willy

 

[infinity]

You're not using the CSST as an electrode you're simply bonding it. Now can you just clamp the GEC that's going to an electrode to it instead of running a separate conductor would doing so change anything?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

You do not have to run a separate conductor back to the panel as Infinity stated. This is a bond so just tie it to the closest electrode or electrode conductor.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I believe the code used to require the bond to be at the point where the gas pipe enters the building but I don't believe that is the case any more.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Now I am not sure.... here is the code on csst

7.12.2* CSST.


CSST gas piping systems, and gas piping systems containing one or more segments of CSST, shall be electrically continuous and bonded to the electrical service grounding electrode system or, where provided, lightning protection grounding electrode system.

7.12.2.1
The bonding jumper shall connect to a metallic pipe, pipe fitting, or CSST fitting.

7.12.2.2
The bonding jumper shall not be smaller than 6 AWG copper wire or equivalent.

7.12.2.3*
The length of the jumper between the connection to the gas piping system and the grounding electrode system shall not exceed 75 ft (22 m). Any additional grounding electrodes installed to meet this requirement shall be bonded to the electrical service grounding electrode system or, where provided, lightning protection grounding electrode system.

7.12.2.4
Bonding connections shall be in accordance with NFPA 70.

7.12.2.5
Devices used for the bonding connection shall be listed for the application in accordance with UL 467, Grounding and Bonding Equipment.

 

[Eddie702]

Where does it say he is using CSST?

Whoops, my bad it's in the title

Isn't most gas piping considered bonded by the power supply to the gas equipment

 

[LarryFine]

Isn't most gas piping considered bonded by the power supply to the gas equipment

The appliance end is, which is why nearby lightning strikes can drive current through the CSST by energizing the meter end.

Bonding the latter to the service EGC/grounding bus effectively bonds both ends of the CSST, eliminating that current.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The appliance end is, which is why nearby lightning strikes can drive current through the CSST by energizing the meter end.

Bonding the latter to the service EGC/grounding bus effectively bonds both ends of the CSST, eliminating that current.

However when the CSST bonding requirements were submitted as proposed changes to the NEC, the submitters could not supply information to convince CMP 5 that the bonding would actually prevent the lightning induced fires. The manufacturers then moved to NFPA 54 and got the rule in that code, mainly because there are no bonding and grounding experts on the NFPA 54 technical committee and those panel members were convinced by the substantiation.

I would never buy or live in a house that has that type of gas pipe and would also never buy or live in a house with light weight "engineered wood" construction.

 

[wwhitney]

I would never buy or live in a house that has that type of gas pipe

What about in a location where the earthquake risk is greater than the lightning risk? Flexible CSST is supposed to be more resilient to ground motions, the pipe can just deflect rather than get stressed by structural displacements.

and would also never buy or live in a house with light weight "engineered wood" construction.

What do you have against engineered wood?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[don_resqcapt19]

What about in a location where the earthquake risk is greater than the lightning risk? Flexible CSST is supposed to be more resilient to ground motions, the pipe can just deflect rather than get stressed by structural displacements.


What do you have against engineered wood?

Cheers, Wayne

You may have a point about earthquakes, but still not a product that I would want in MY house.

Lightweight engineered wood such as "I joists" give you about five minutes between the time they catch fire and structural collapse. Something that can happen even before your smoke alarm alerts you to the problem. Real wood has many minutes or even hours before structural failure.

 

[rc/retired]

You may have a point about earthquakes, but still not a product that I would want in MY house.

Lightweight engineered wood such as "I joists" give you about five minutes between the time they catch fire and structural collapse. Something that can happen even before your smoke alarm alerts you to the problem. Real wood has many minutes or even hours before structural failure.

The building code now requires I-joists be protected by sprinklers, sheets rock or equivalent.

 

[petersonra]

The building code now requires I-joists be protected by sprinklers, sheets rock or equivalent.

I think it can be sprayed with a fire resistant coating as well. I am surprised the I-joist makers have not figured out how to make them fire resistant. You would not think it would be all that hard. they are basically plywood and they make fire resistant plywood.

 

[rc/retired]

Yes they can be sprayed with a fire resistant paint as well.
There was a short lived I-joist that came out shortly after the code required protection. It had a yellow coloring to it so an inspector could tell it was treated.
The product was a failure and every house with that I-joist had to have all of them replaced.
Bad deal for the manufacturers.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The building code now requires I-joists be protected by sprinklers, sheets rock or equivalent.

All of the areas around here have deleted the sheet rock requirement and than only applies to basements with heating equipment. Also the building codes have required dwelling unit fire sprinklers for a few years now, and most localities delete that requirement.

Even full size trusses with the gang nail plates have a short life under fire conditions. The gang nails do not penetrate that deep and 15 to 20 minutes of fire will let the plates fall off and in many cases a single truss failure results in a cascading failure of the roof system.

 

[rc/retired]

Wow. In my area, sprinklers are required for attached homes. The fire authority wants them in single family dwellings. So far they're not successful.

I haven't heard of any catastrophic truss failures due to the gang plates. I will ask a firefighter I know.
That is interesting, though.

 

[DBoone]

Wow. In my area, sprinklers are required for attached homes. The fire authority wants them in single family dwellings. So far they're not successful.

I haven't heard of any catastrophic truss failures due to the gang plates. I will ask a firefighter I know.
That is interesting, though.

Let us know what you find out. As a builder, I’m interested.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Wow. In my area, sprinklers are required for attached homes. The fire authority wants them in single family dwellings. So far they're not successful.

I haven't heard of any catastrophic truss failures due to the gang plates. I will ask a firefighter I know.
That is interesting, though.

The model building codes require fire sprinklers for single family dwellings, but most of the time that has been deleted localy, however there are over 100 municipalities in Illinois that require single family dwellings to have fire sprinkler systems.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Let us know what you find out. As a builder, I’m interested.

Over the years, when I was a fire fighter, there were a number of articles about this issue in the fire service trade magazines. I no longer get those magazines so not sure if there has been anything recently.
I do have trusses in my house, but each nail plate has been covered with 3/4" plywood to prevent this issue for a longer period of time if there was a fire.

If would build new, there still would be no engineered lumber products and the house would have fire sprinklers.

 

[jim dungar]

If would build new, there still would be no engineered lumber products...

Not even microlaminated beams?

 

[wwhitney]

Lightweight engineered wood such as "I joists" give you about five minutes between the time they catch fire and structural collapse. Something that can happen even before your smoke alarm alerts you to the problem. Real wood has many minutes or even hours before structural failure.

Thanks for the information.

FWIW, APA has a publication of assemblies that they say have demonstrated performance equivalent to open framing solid sawn 2x10s or larger.

APA Publication Search - APA – The Engineered Wood Association

Search for publications, videos, CAD details, images, and other materials in the APA Resource Library.

www.apawood.org

The simplest assemblies consist of mineral wool board or gypsum board laid on the top of the I-joist bottom flanges, blocking the open joist bay. Gypsum board is minimum 1/2", or 5/8" for 24" o.c. I-joists, and is just loose laid. Mineral wool is minimum 2.0 pcf 2" thick, or Roxul 2.5 pcf 3" thick for 24" o.c. I joists, with insulation supports at a specified spacing.

Cheers, Wayne