# Bonding gas line to an RTU



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

hvac guys? running gas to an RTU? in flexible gas lines? sounds like something i wouldn't want to deal with


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

I think I read somewhere that there is such a fitting, but there is usually a stub on one end or the other that is Black iron or galv, which you are allowed to bond to with a cold water clamp. check on Holt

http://www.csstsafety.com/Images/CSST-Direct-Bonding-Tech-Bulletin.pdf


----------



## emahler (Oct 13, 2011)

wildleg said:


> I think I read somewhere that there is such a fitting, but there is usually a stub on one end or the other that is Black iron or galv, which you are allowed to bond to with a cold water clamp. check on Holt
> 
> http://www.csstsafety.com/Images/CSST-Direct-Bonding-Tech-Bulletin.pdf


erico, among others, make a fitting..seems we just need to pick up one of the connection points of the CSST and bond it to the service grounding system. Honestly, i just need a freaking diagram of the system..lol

http://www.mpesnj.com/electrical-bonding.html


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Actually if it is CSST then you need to run a bond from the main service to the point at which the gas line enters the building- hence you can bond to the black iron but you need to use a brass clamp rated for outdoor. 

The gas code requires the bonding to be done at the point where the gas line enters the building.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Here is the code sections that apply



> SECTION G2411 (310) ELECTRICAL BONDING
> G2411.1 (310.1) Pipe and tubing other than CSST. Each above-ground portion of a gas piping system other than corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST), that is likely to becomeenergized shall be electrically continuous and bonded to an effective ground-fault current path. Gas piping, other than CSST, shall be considered to be bondedwhere it is connected to appliances that are connected to the equipment grounding conductor of the circuit supplying that appliance.
> 
> 
> G2411.1.1 (310.1.1) CSST. Corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) gas piping systems shall be bonded to the electrical service grounding electrode system at the point where the gas service enters the building. The bonding jumper shall be not smaller than 6AWGcopper wire or equivalent.


----------



## Amish Electrician (Jan 2, 2010)

".... where it enters the building."

Now there's a detail I had missed. I was just now considering making the bond under the house, in the crawl space (so as to conceal the wire from copper thieves). That would be "after" the pipe enters the house, IMO. That code you cited seems to call for the bond to be near the gas meter.

Though, I'm not sure the bond has to be at the "main service." For example ...

I'm just did a service change where I have the service and two ground rods. One of the rods is quite near the gas service. IMO, you would meet the requirement by bonding directly to the ground rod, as the ground rod is already tied to the main service.

Some might want to use the 'intersystem bonding termination block.'

What do you think?

On a related topic, I would run this GEC in pipe, like I run the GEC from the panel, to protect it from both lawn mowers and thieves.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

I would check with the manufacturer as some of them required a bond based on 250.66 so for a 200 amp service a #4 is required but if you have #4 to the ground rod then I imagine that would be fine. I do consider that as part of the main service. My point was it couldn't be connected to a sub panel since the sub panel is not part of the GES.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

good info there Dennis, I guess I should read this dang 2011 book.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

wildleg said:


> good info there Dennis, I guess I should read this dang 2011 book.


 I am not sure what code Dennis quoted, but it was not the NEC. There is no special bonding required by the NEC for gas piping no matter what type of gas piping was installed. 
The manufacturer's instructions, some building codes and NFPA 54 require the special bonding for the CSST gas piping.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> I am not sure what code Dennis quoted, but it was not the NEC. There is no special bonding required by the NEC for gas piping no matter what type of gas piping was installed.
> The manufacturer's instructions, some building codes and NFPA 54 require the special bonding for the CSST gas piping.



That is the gas code.... sorry I though I mentioned it. I actually did mention it in the post above where I stated the code itself- Post 5


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> That is the gas code.... sorry I though I mentioned it. I actually did mention it in the post above where I stated the code itself- Post 5


 Is that NFPA 54 or some other "gas" code?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Is that NFPA 54 or some other "gas" code?


I believe that is in the new ICC 2010 residential code but I am not certain.


----------



## Amish Electrician (Jan 2, 2010)

Don't feel bad if this whole 'bond the gas' thing confuses you.

Not only is it 'new,' it's conditional (only required if CSST is used), and contradicts what was once the rule. I think the NEC -even today - forbids using the gas pipe as a grounding electrode. It's a mighty fine line between 'bonding' something and using that something as an 'electrode.'

I mean ... will they give the electrons a ticket if they're flowing in the wrong direction?

On my recent service change, I asked the AHJ about bonding the gas, and he .... well, the inspector was dubious, and the plumber flat said it wasn't allowed.

It looks like EVERYONE is getting caught out on this one.

I anticipate that - in a code cycle or two - we will see specific NEC proposals on this matter. I predict that adding a 'gas bond' to the grounding electrode system becomes required.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Amish Electrician said:


> Not only is it 'new,' it's conditional (only required if CSST is used), and contradicts what was once the rule.


 It is not new- csst has been requiring bonding for many years thru the manufacturers instructions.



> I think the NEC -even today - forbids using the gas pipe as a grounding electrode. It's a mighty fine line between 'bonding' something and using that something as an 'electrode.'


 Bonding the gas line does not mean you are using it as an electrode. Generally the gas company has a dielectric fitting at the meter to ensure that the bonding does not go into the earth where the gas pipe would be an electrode.




> I anticipate that - in a code cycle or two - we will see specific NEC proposals on this matter. I predict that adding a 'gas bond' to the grounding electrode system becomes required.


I am not sure about that as the NEC has already stayed away from this issue.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Amish Electrician said:


> ...
> I anticipate that - in a code cycle or two - we will see specific NEC proposals on this matter. I predict that adding a 'gas bond' to the grounding electrode system becomes required.


 The NEC already requires the gas piping to be bonded, it just doesn't require the bonding that the manufacturer's of CSST say that they need to make their product safe. See 250.104(B)
There were proposals to require the CSST bonding, but they were rejected by CMP 5 because there is no technical evidence that the bonding required by the CSST manufacturer's actually does anything to make their product safer.


----------



## Amish Electrician (Jan 2, 2010)

Well, Don, that's the issue ...

First, let me apologize for calling a 20-yr. old piping method "new." Then again, only recently did I buy my first car that was less than 20 years old. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

Bonding the gas on the 'supply side' of the CSST is not in the NEC. The "NEC bonding" in invariably accomplished within the appliance that's your likely source of power. Saying that electricians 'already bond' the gas is a bit misleading.

Bonding the gas piping on the supply side of the CSST isn't a matter of manufacturer specs; rather,it's a matter of code. The 'fuel gas' and the 'mechanical' codes, to be specific. As mentioned earlier, even plumbers and inspectors are often not aware of this.

The fact is, we have to meet ALL codes, not just the NEC.

Considering the number of changes made each cycle to bring the NEC "into harmony" with other codes, I predict the NEC will soon specify grounding the gas at the start of the run.

I also base my speculation on the tendency the NEC panels have to play 'what if ...' As in, maybe there's only pipe today, but what if someone adds a bit of CSST later?

I do not expect CSST to be removed as an approved piping method. Sure, it has issues - but not nearly enough to get it discarded.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Amish Electrician said:


> I do not expect CSST to be removed as an approved piping method. Sure, it has issues - but not nearly enough to get it discarded.


Massachusettes had it on hold for awhile and perhaps still does. So for you it is not a big deal that the more than 100 million dollars in lawsuits that was paid out because lightning destroy many buildings due to the fact that CSST split and burned the houses down.

Here is a* pdf from NFPA* that is a good read about CSST


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Don here is something from NFPA 54



> NFPA 54: Section 7.13.2
> The 2009 edition of NFPA 54 was approved by ANSI on September 5, 2008. The 2009 editions
> of the ICC International Fuel Gas Code and the IAPMO Uniform Plumbing Code also have
> exactly the same language and requirements. The latest editions of these codes require the
> ...


----------



## Amish Electrician (Jan 2, 2010)

"So for you it is not a big deal"

I'm not the one whose opinion counts here.

Consider all the fury over the years regarding aluminum wiring - and it's still legal. There's nothing keeping wire makers from making and selling "15 amp aluminum Romex" again. They just haven't bothered to market it. NEC still allows it.

Consider the efforts required to get polybutylene tubing removed as an approved plumbing method. 

For all the hysteria regarding FPE panels, there is nothing keeping Schneider from selling their version of the Stab-Loc here in the USA. Listed inventory is only a Canadian truck away. Only their marketing keeps them north of the border.

How many more years was the Corvair produced, after Ralph Nader condemned it? (I think it was three).

My point was that CSST is nowhere near 'bad' enough to get it removed from the market. That is, there's no chance of outvoting the manufacturers, or persuading folks to forgo the labor saving advantages of the material.

BTW, thanks for the citations to other NFPA sources that have opinions contrary to what you said were the opinions of the NEC panels.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Amish Electrician said:


> ...
> Bonding the gas piping on the supply side of the CSST isn't a matter of manufacturer specs; rather,it's a matter of code. The 'fuel gas' and the 'mechanical' codes, to be specific. As mentioned earlier, even plumbers and inspectors are often not aware of this.
> 
> The fact is, we have to meet ALL codes, not just the NEC.


While someone has to comply with those codes, it is not the responsibility of the electrical contractor unless it is in his scope of work and he gets paid to do it.



> Considering the number of changes made each cycle to bring the NEC "into harmony" with other codes, I predict the NEC will soon specify grounding the gas at the start of the run.
> I also base my speculation on the tendency the NEC panels have to play 'what if ...' As in, maybe there's only pipe today, but what if someone adds a bit of CSST later?


The problem is that the NEC technical committee has not been provided with any documetation that shows this bonding solves the problem. If fact there is no such documentation or evidence that adding this additional bonding with make the CSST safe to use. If there is ever any such documentation, then I would expect that panel 5 would accept a proposal to require this bonding.



> I do not expect CSST to be removed as an approved piping method. Sure, it has issues - but not nearly enough to get it discarded.


I am not so sure about that.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> While someone has to comply with those codes, it is not the responsibility of the electrical contractor unless it is in his scope of work and he gets paid .


There are many state have legal wording making it the electrical contractor's responsibility. Do you really want plumbers landing wires in your service?


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

"For existing installations that use CSST, the state is not mandating who actually does the bonding. The state's main concern is that it gets bonded. An inspection will not pass if the CSST is not bonded, regardless of who installed it.

If a contractor decides to bond the CSST, please make sure you read the manufacturer's specifications regarding the bonding to make sure it is being done properly."

That is part of an email I received from our inspector


----------



## Celtic (Nov 19, 2007)

Check pg. 10 here: 
http://www.njcleancities.org/successes/ccc_2011_spring.pdf


----------



## Amish Electrician (Jan 2, 2010)

I was pretty clear about where I was speculating as to the future. Please do not confuse this speculation with my own opinion. Speculation is just that - and only time will tell if I am reading the tea leaves right. 

Effective or not? Please- when did the code panels worry about that? Certainly not since 1996, when they started all the AFCI silliness. Followed by 'laundry silliness,' 'microwave silliness,' and 'TR silliness.' Code has entered a twilight zone.

Does CSST need to be removed from the market? Maybe; again, that's just speculation. 

As a grounding issue, though, I see this as much part of the electricians' job as bonding the water line. We don't ask plumbers to do that; we do that. I see it being enforced at every service change.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Amish Electrician said:


> Does CSST need to be removed from the market? Maybe; again, that's just speculation.


 That was definitely an issue for awhile but I think the industry fought that hard. As I stated some areas did outlaw it.



> As a grounding issue, though, I see this as much part of the electricians' job as bonding the water line. We don't ask plumbers to do that; we do that. I see it being enforced at every service change.


The difference here is that the water bonding is part of the NEC the CSST is not, however I agree the EC should do it just as Smoke Detectors are not part of the NEC but if they are not part of a LV system we are responsible for it.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> ...
> The difference here is that the water bonding is part of the NEC the CSST is not, however I agree the EC should do it just as Smoke Detectors are not part of the NEC but if they are not part of a LV system we are responsible for it.


The responsibility rests with the owner and who ever he hires to do it.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> There are many state have legal wording making it the electrical contractor's responsibility. Do you really want plumbers landing wires in your service?


I really doubt it has been made the ECs responsibility to do without compensation. I would bet that the rules say it has to be done by an EC. That does not make it the responsibility of the EC on the job. The owner or plumber can hire any EC he wants to do to the job.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Amish Electrician said:


> ...
> As a grounding issue, though, I see this as much part of the electricians' job as bonding the water line. We don't ask plumbers to do that; we do that. I see it being enforced at every service change.


 The connection to the water pipe is part of the electrical installation, not the plumbing installation. The connection to the CSST is part of the plumbing installation and not the electrical installation.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Amish Electrician said:


> ...
> Effective or not? Please- when did the code panels worry about that? Certainly not since 1996, when they started all the AFCI silliness. Followed by 'laundry silliness,' 'microwave silliness,' and 'TR silliness.' Code has entered a twilight zone.
> ...


 CMP5 has nothing to do with any of those things.


----------



## Amish Electrician (Jan 2, 2010)

As to 'whose job is it?," I fail to see any sources sited that support any position - and a simple claim ignores the effect of changes ofer time. 

In a new install, where CSST is present, I cannot find anything that says 'gas pipe' is the plumber's job while 'water pipe' is the electrician's. Nor is the necessary material available at the usual plumbing houses.

After-the-fact maintenance, where CSST is later added? I'd place the burden on the contractor making the change, but realize that this is unenforceable. Hence, I predict it will become a universal requirement.

My comments regarding the expansive zeal of the NEC committees were not limited to CMP 5. From cover to cover, the NEC has taken a few turns of which I do not approve. For the most part, I object to the intrusion of the NEC into design issues. I also object to the quest for 'perfect one-size-fits all' solutions. 

Those are topics worthy of their own discussion. Yet, they are also why I predict the NEC will at some time require 'bonding the gas service.'


----------



## Norcal (Mar 22, 2007)

Amish Electrician said:


> "So for you it is not a big deal"
> 
> I'm not the one whose opinion counts here.
> 
> ...


CSST is crap, as is PEX, I will keep black iron pipe for gas & copper for water, at least black & copper pipe has not subject to class action lawsuits. I have no issues w/ ABS or PVC drain lines.


----------



## Celtic (Nov 19, 2007)

Norcal said:


> ...at least black & copper pipe has not subject to class action lawsuits. I have no issues w/ ABS or PVC drain lines.


...better use black iron pipe for everything:
Nationwide settlement pending over Kitec plumbing products

http://www.plumbingdefect.com/

Pinhole Leaks In _Copper Pipes_. 

Leaks in _Copper pipe_ have officials confused over cause

Notice of _Class Action_ for Premature Failure

http://www.bigclassaction.com/settlement/defective-copper-plumbing.php


ABS _Pipe Class Action Lawsuits_


----------

