CSST touching steel ductwork

[John Dirks Jr]

Should I ignore the writing in the manufacturers installation guide?:

This is from page 48 of the Gastite Design and Installation Guide November 2008-

Care should be taken when installing vertical runs to maintain as much separation as reasonably possible from other

electrically conductive systems in the building.

4.3.2 Horizontal Runs

Tubing routed on top of ceiling joists and other structural members which comply with the horizontal support spacing

requirements will be considered sufficiently supported . See Figures 4-24, 4-25, 4-26 and 4-27 for examples of acceptable

support configurations when routing Gastite®. Gastite may be routed beneath, through and alongside floor and ceiling

joists. Due consideration must be given to future construction possibilities. Horizontal runs in concealed areas must

conform to Section 4.4 Protection.

Care should be taken when installing horizontal runs to maintain as much separation as reasonably possible from

other electrically conductive systems in the building.

[Marc]

Should I ignore the writing in the manufacturers installation guide?:

This is from page 48 of the Gastite Design and Installation Guide November 2008-

Care should be taken when installing vertical runs to maintain as much separation as reasonably possible from other

electrically conductive systems in the building.

4.3.2 Horizontal Runs

Tubing routed on top of ceiling joists and other structural members which comply with the horizontal support spacing

requirements will be considered sufficiently supported . See Figures 4-24, 4-25, 4-26 and 4-27 for examples of acceptable

support configurations when routing Gastite®. Gastite may be routed beneath, through and alongside floor and ceiling

joists. Due consideration must be given to future construction possibilities. Horizontal runs in concealed areas must

conform to Section 4.4 Protection.

Care should be taken when installing horizontal runs to maintain as much separation as reasonably possible from

other electrically conductive systems in the building.

I would not bother with pointing out those particular passages from the Gastite Design and Installation Guide to any client for the simple reason that it's not actually a hazard. The manufacturer is incorrect in their assertions as Douglas so amply pointed out.

Marc

[John Dirks Jr]

Should I ignore the writing in the manufacturers installation guide?:

This is from page 48 of the Gastite Design and Installation Guide November 2008-

Care should be taken when installing vertical runs to maintain as much separation as reasonably possible from other

electrically conductive systems in the building.

4.3.2 Horizontal Runs

Tubing routed on top of ceiling joists and other structural members which comply with the horizontal support spacing

requirements will be considered sufficiently supported . See Figures 4-24, 4-25, 4-26 and 4-27 for examples of acceptable

support configurations when routing Gastite®. Gastite may be routed beneath, through and alongside floor and ceiling

joists. Due consideration must be given to future construction possibilities. Horizontal runs in concealed areas must

conform to Section 4.4 Protection.

Care should be taken when installing horizontal runs to maintain as much separation as reasonably possible from

other electrically conductive systems in the building.

I would not bother with pointing out those particular passages from the Gastite Design and Installation Guide to any client for the simple reason that it's not actually a hazard. The manufacturer is incorrect in their assertions as Douglas so amply pointed out.

Marc

No problemo.....can do.

Thanks everyone.

[Douglas Hansen]

The latest news on this topic casts quite a different light on it. It seems the question isn't what sort of feel-good bonding to apply, but whether the stuff should be allowed at all. Could this be the end of CSST?

Douglas Hansen

Download Attachment: CSST_Product_Liability_Suit.pdf

567.68 KB

[Tom Raymond]

Lightening strikes damage all kinds of systems, not just gas lines. Seems to me that if a structure is at significant risk of being struck it should have a suppression system installed. If lightening posed a statistically significant risk then such suppression would be addressed by the building code. Perhaps they're barking up the wrong tree...but then there's all the money to be made from litigation[:-banghea

[Scottpat]

This is the link to the site that Douglas posted the PDF file.

http://www.subrogationrecoverylawblog.c ... mark-case/

[John Dirks Jr]

I wonder if a case like this would trickle down to other manufacturers such as Gastite.

[Nolan Kienitz]

I wonder if a case like this would trickle down to other manufacturers such as Gastite.

Absolutely ... the concern is "CSST" ... made by whatever manufacturer.

Some individual CSST legal claims have been made in the D/FW market over the past year. Homeowner's filing claims against builders and involved trades. They have prevailed.

No ... I don't have access to the legal final findings.

[gtblum]

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

[Fred C]

Since a jury has determined CSST is a "defective" product, the only option for inspectors is to recommend replacement of CSST, right?

[Marc]

Since a jury has determined CSST is a "defective" product, the only option for inspectors is to recommend replacement of CSST, right?

Another option is to simply mention that a court of law in this country has found it to be a defective product.

If the CPSC were to jump on board the CSST bashing wagon, there would be additional motivation to go beyond just that mention.

Marc

[Tom Raymond]

This is what happens when lawyers decide how we should do things instead of scientists. CSST only fails in this manner when it is subjected to a lightening strike, and lots of other systems in the same house will fail as a result of that same event. Active and passive lightening suppression makes more sense than abandoning CSST and suing the manufacturers out of business.

[Douglas Hansen]

This is what happens when lawyers decide how we should do things instead of scientists. CSST only fails in this manner when it is subjected to a lightening strike, and lots of other systems in the same house will fail as a result of that same event. Active and passive lightening suppression makes more sense than abandoning CSST and suing the manufacturers out of business.

Tom - don't you think the CSST manufacturers have only themselves to blame for doing what you describe in your first sentence? They offered a junk science alternative (#6 bond wire) without scientific evidence, hoping it would be sufficient to defray their liability if they could only get the codes to sign onto it.

I agree 100% that lightning protection systems would be more appropriate as a means of protection, but I don't think the CSST manufacturers wish to be in a position to advocate something that expensive any time their product is installed. It will be interesting to see how the folks on the code-making panel for NFPA 54 respond to the various proposals for changes to the next edition.

Douglas Hansen

[hausdok]

Hi Douglas,

Apparently the manufacturers know they've got a problem and they've been developing alternatives.

http://www.pmmag.com/Articles/Web_Exclu ... 0000939233

http://www.omegaflex.com/trac/why/learn ... Strike.php

http://www.reevesjournal.com/Articles/F ... 0000912699

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[proesjb1]

I felt compelled to register in order to post after reading this thread with much interest. I'm not an inspector but rather a homeowner who has been poring over information concerning csst and electrical arcing after having two perforated (Counterstrike) gas lines in my basement in the past week.

The first leak was detected within 30 minutes of the replacement (by a licensed electrician) of a supposedly bad GFCI breaker with a non-GFCI breaker that was controlling the basement electricity. The perforated csst line (image below) had been in direct contact with a metal duct at the point of perforation. Neither the electrician or the plumber made any connection to the perforation and a potential electrical problem.

Click to Enlarge

35.7 KB

The second leak (on a different line, this one mounted directly to a metal duct) occurred about a week later. After this (and armed with internet knowledge) we went looking for and found the source of the electricity...a stripped electrical wire pulled tight against a duct. The GFCI breaker wasn't bad, it was tripping because of the electrical short.

Our GC (new construction house) still seems incredulous that the gas lines could be perforated by arcing from duct work contacting a live wire.

We are still trying to gather information and consult our own inspectors to determine if any codes were violated with the installation. Specifically whether electrical wires and/or gas lines should be contacting the ducts.

Am I understanding correctly from reading this thread that contact of a csst line with metal duct is quite probably perfectly acceptable? NY is the only specific example I have foundwhere code prohibits contact of csst with metal ductwork (http://www.dos.state.ny.us/code/csst.htm).

Thanks for your consideration.

Jody

[Jim Katen]

I felt compelled to register in order to post after reading this thread with much interest. I'm not an inspector but rather a homeowner who has been poring over information concerning csst and electrical arcing after having two perforated (Counterstrike) gas lines in my basement in the past week.

The first leak was detected within 30 minutes of the replacement (by a licensed electrician) of a supposedly bad GFCI breaker with a non-GFCI breaker that was controlling the basement electricity. The perforated csst line (image below) had been in direct contact with a metal duct at the point of perforation. Neither the electrician or the plumber made any connection to the perforation and a potential electrical problem.

Click to Enlarge

35.7 KB

The second leak (on a different line, this one mounted directly to a metal duct) occurred about a week later. After this (and armed with internet knowledge) we went looking for and found the source of the electricity...a stripped electrical wire pulled tight against a duct. The GFCI breaker wasn't bad, it was tripping because of the electrical short.

Our GC (new construction house) still seems incredulous that the gas lines could be perforated by arcing from duct work contacting a live wire.

We are still trying to gather information and consult our own inspectors to determine if any codes were violated with the installation. Specifically whether electrical wires and/or gas lines should be contacting the ducts.

Am I understanding correctly from reading this thread that contact of a csst line with metal duct is quite probably perfectly acceptable? NY is the only specific example I have foundwhere code prohibits contact of csst with metal ductwork (http://www.dos.state.ny.us/code/csst.htm).

Thanks for your consideration.

Jody

Ouch, that's nasty. I suppose you realize that you're lucky that you haven't been blown up?

At least one CSST manufacturer requires that it's product be kept away from ducts. The reference was in Post #13 of this thread.

The problem you experienced is really quite remarkable, though. There was enough current flow to cause arcs that ate through the steel tubing but that wasn't enough to trip a breaker. In your case, the conductive sheath on the Counterstrike seems to have been part of the problem. Your case also seems to be an advertisement for Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters.

And by the way, forty lashes with a wet noodle for the electrician who swapped out a GFCI for a regular receptacle without figuring out why the GFCI was tripping. He could have killed you.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[Marc]

Perhaps the aluminum mesh found in Gastite's new Flash Shield CSST would conduct well enough to trip a 20 amp breaker without damaging the pressure lining. It's a different approach than the solution offered by TracPipe's Counter Strike.

See Mike O's first link in post #39.

Marc

[Douglas Hansen]

Jody - I urge you to please save the damaged CSST.

I am very sorry to learn that you had these problems in your house, and hope you realize how lucky you were that your house wasn't destroyed. I appeal to you for help in preventing someone else from becoming a fire statistic.

At this time, the organization that creates our gas codes (specifically, the NFPA 54 Code Making Panel and the NFPA Standards Council) are looking at proposals and counter-proposals regarding the status of CSST in the nation's fuel gas codes. The makers of "counterstrike" presented them with arguments that their product should be exempt from bonding because they claimed it was much safer than other CSST and because it had an ICC Evaluation Service report that they claimed found the conductive material in the Counterstrike to be the equivalent of bonding with a #6 wire.

I would be happy to arrange to have your damaged CSST sent to a member of the NFPA 54 Code-Making-Panel. Could you please respond to me directly at Douglas@Codecheck.com?

Thank you

Douglas Hansen

[John Dirks Jr]

Another example from a recent inspection. In this shot there is two different brand names. Gastite and TracPipe.

Click to Enlarge

32.17 KB

[John Dirks Jr]

Manufacturers instructions say to not put CSST near other electrically conductive systems such as metal duct work.

Do you think the contractors who installed the stuff in the picture I posted above should be responsible for correcting the installation?