JamesNLA

Have at it....
http://gastite.com/include/languages.../TB2007_01.pdf

This link covers some basic review and the requirements for bonding CSST. I still think it's totally lame

__________________
"....And then we all switch places when I ring the bell"
-Adrock

Electricmanscot

It should be pointed out that this bonding is NOT required by the NEC. You can not be required by an electrical inspector nor can you fail an electrical inspection based on not bonding the CSST. It was brought forward twice before our state code gurus and the code making panels rejected it, again two times.
Again this is according to the NEC. Local ordinances may apply.

This is a plumbing requirement and it is the plumbers responsibilty to comply with the installation requirements. Where a license is required to do electrical work it is up to the plumber to hire a licensed electrician to install the required bonding. In other third world like areas of the country where no licensing is required I guess anyone can do it.

Ron The Plumber

Yes I knew about this a year ago. Read about it in a lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that CSST poses an unreasonable risk of fire due to lightning strikes. Plaintiffs allege that the CSST tubing is not thick enough to prevent damage to the CSST in the event of a lightning strike and that Defendants failed to warn consumers about these alleged dangers.

http://www.pddocs.com/csst/faq.aspx

__________________

JamesNLA

Well that may be true in the great state where the best team in Baseball call home, but in my part of SoCal it must be bonded or the plumbing gas line inspection will not proceed. Now, that said I do not believe it is required to be bonded (with respect to an electrical inspection) for a service upgrade. Meaning the bonding requirements are not affected by this stupid gas line bonding issue. I'm waiting for the day when my AHJ decide I need 2 permits to install one gas line......sigh.....

__________________
"....And then we all switch places when I ring the bell"
-Adrock

JohnJ0906

This topic came up at the Mike Holt '08 seminar I attended last week. As he told us, the manufacturers of this CSST came before the CMP for Article 250, asking for a code change requiring this #6 bond.

They were told that before the CMP would approve this change, they needed to have it tested at a certain lab. The CMP doesn't want to make the problem worse, and they wanted technical support for the change. Obviously, a company that is being sued isn't going to take a chance that if the CSST fails the test, they would have paid to give the plaintiffs evidence to use against them.
I'm sorry I don't remember the details better. I will say we got a good laugh out of it.

I think this product should be removed from the market until the manufacturers can prove it can withstand induced voltage.

__________________
John from Baltimore
"One Day at a Time"
All replies based on the 2008 NEC