Re: CSST certification and proper installation
I have been certified in both Gastite and Trac Pipe for about 10 yrs now and have installed about a mile combined. I had to take a 3 hour training class to get my Gastite card, which was required to buy the product. About a yr. later, I took the self test from Omegaflex (Trac Pipe) and get certified through the mail. I had to present my card at the counter every time to buy flex or couplings. A few supply houses maintain this practice. Of course, when you're in there often enough, they remember you.
Sure there has been abuse and misuse with this product class----just as there is every day with black iron and copper. Properly applied, there is no increased incidence rate with this product than any other. Soft copper blows out from lightning, too. It's just not easy to identifiy the mfr. and it is an unlisted *material* compared to a listed product. Think of copper much like lumber or mortar. It has an ASTM std. for its mfr. but is not tested or listed as a *system*. It often does not carry readily identifiable markings so that precludes any litigation, esp. class action.
As to the bonding issue, this is an example of knee-jerk politics. The ASSumption is that installing a #6 AWG copper wire bonding directly to the point of entry will create equipotential voltage and that this does so better than the steel pipe the CSST may be connected to. This is all theoretical unproven technology. What's more, there has been No research into insulating these lines in proximity to grounding electrodes where arcing could occur. Suppose you required insulated standoffs at any point where CSST crosses a steel beam? This would very likely solve the problem. We have to install grommets where CSST penetrates an appliance cabinet so this would be just an extension of that philosophy.
It all boils down to proving what is sufficient by actual field experience and monitoring of loss data and the analysis of that data and findings compared to prerequisite testing of *anticipated* conditions prior to the product being placed in the stream of commerce. Some of this is driven by codes and stds. while some is driven by product liability litigation. As a mfr. you have a duty to make the product *reasonably* safe from hazards that are *reasonably* expected under the normal conditions of use. That does not mean Mil-Spec or NASA grade--it just means what can reasonably be anticipated. If a mfrs. buries their head in the sand over a field condition any fool could see, he is opening the door for litigation under the theory of Strict Liability.
Look, I agree there have been problems with this product. I investigated one such incident where lightning was determined to enter a factory built chimney attached to a factory built woodburning fireplace with listed vented gas logs attached directly to CSST. The load traveled about 30 ft. before it arced at the point the CSST crossed over a steel I-beam in the open basement. However, fire had ignited in the corner wall cavity about 8 ft. from the fireplace presumably by arcing from electrical cables that were routed through the Fp chase. The kid reported the fire in the wall first so they evacuated and waited on the Fire Dept. Right as the fire dept arrived, the leaking NG in the basement iginted a small fireball and burned briskly for a few mintues as the gas was shutoff and small handlines extinguished the blaze. The point is, there was ignition of the house first--the gas leaking exacerbated a pre-existing fire. The pin hole in the CSST was NOT the origin of the fire. Heck, there are a lot of accelerants stored in people's homes that can make what would have been a simple fire much more complex to control--I've been there as a fire fighter. I'm just asking for calm and reason instead of witch hunting.
The inescapable truths in all this mess are the need for better training, better trained inspectors that are allocated the time to properly inspect ALL gas piping and testing both for leaks and ground potential.
Off my soapbox,
Happy Thanksgiving,
Hearthman
