Another chink in the armour against CSST. Person on screen and the TV news story use ‘CCST’, but you get the idea.
Sigh…you’d think the reporter might, just might, delve a little deeper into why and how CSST is vulnerable in a lightening strike, and why we push for bonding it to a ground source (not grounding it as stated in the piece), but this is a small town news station with small town reporters. On the other hand, even here in Denver, we see similar empty headed reporting.
Inspector friend of mine lives not far from the site and is a retired fire captain. He was contacted as were several plumbers and electricians and they all declined any interviews.
Nobody down here wants to get in front of a camera or in the newspaper with their name or photo as there are too many attorneys looking for somebody to say something amiss and start lawsuits.
It is self-preservation as TREC (the licensing agency) has put one helluva huge target on the inspector’s backs when it comes to CSST.
In Maryland we have legally required boilerplate for CSST. Essentially you are required by law to state that CSST is present in the house and that only a Licensed Master Electrician can approve the bonding. It’s important to note what was said in the news item as correct, “…grounding [bonding] can significantly lower [not eliminate] the risk…” However the risk of your home getting struck by lightning does not change based on whether you have CSST or not. Moreover ANY house struck by lightning will burn! No successful lawsuits have ever occurred against CSST and many have tried. The incidence of fire is minuscule compared to the total number of installations.
If lightning wants to hit something it will do it regardless.
Regarding CSST, with cities like Lubbock outright banning all
CSST, Texas has been a lightening rod (pun intended) for the CSST
issue. I call out unbonded CSST almost weekly. Yesterday, I got
an email from a client saying that the seller refused to bond the
CSST at a house I inspected and asking me if it was really that