My letter to the Texas Real Estate Commission regarding CSST requested emergency rules be used to discuss providing a recommendation for CSST to be inspected by an electrician. The wording supports the current efforts of the National Fire Marshals Association and policy of the Texas Fire Marshal.
The TREC Commissioner meeting yesterday briefly commented on the subject and indicated it would be discussed at a future meeting and perhaps given to the inspector committee.
I have recommended follow up inspection on CSST since 2002. I refer all CSST, even apparent bonded CSST, to the electrician due to the disputes that exist. I am changing my text to assure any recommendation is approved by the State Fire Marshal and insurance company. That is because I might not be apprised of a policy change that might happen.
My pending statement is
A gas supply line material known as corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) has been allowed in Texas construction since the 1990’s. CSST and the potential for increased risk of lightning related fire is a matter of concern to many fire safety officials. Investigate the State of Texas Fire Marshal internet site at http://www.tdi.texas.gov/fire/Index.html to verify the recommendation to have a licensed electrician determine if any CSST is properly installed, including bonding and grounding, per the current manufacturer’s installation instructions and applicable local codes.* Property buyers and owners are advised to assure the property condition meets the requirements of their property and casualty insurance provider and any mortgage company requirements. This standard Texas property inspection report is not sufficiently comprehensive or detailed to satisfy these specific requirements.*
Thanks John.
Thank for an offline suggestion from a InterNACHI member. The plumber installs the stuff and the sparky does the bonding. The change has them both looking a it.
A gas supply line material known as corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) has been allowed in Texas construction since the 1990’s. CSST and the potential for increased risk of lightning related fire is a matter of concern to many fire safety officials. Recommend a licensed plumber and electrician determine if the CSST is properly installed, including electrical bonding and grounding,** per the current manufacturer’s installation instructions and applicable local codes.* For more information refer to the State of Texas Fire Marshal internet site at http://www.tdi.texas.gov/fire/Index.html.** Property buyers and owners are advised to assure the property condition meets the requirements of their property and casualty insurance provider and any mortgage company requirements. This standard Texas property inspection report is not sufficiently comprehensive or detailed to satisfy these specific requirements. *
More input from various inspectors
A gas supply line material known as corrugated stainless steel tubing ( CSST ) has been allowed in Texas construction since the 1990’s. CSST and the potential for increased risk of lightning related fire is a matter of concern to many fire safety officials. Recommend a licensed plumber and electrician determine if the CSST is properly installed, including electrical bonding and grounding,** per the current manufacturer’s installation instructions and applicable local codes.* The plumber should be trained and hold current certification by the applicable CSST manufacturer. For more information refer to the State of Texas Fire Marshal internet site at http://www.tdi.texas.gov/fire/Index.html.** Property buyers and owners are advised to assure the property condition meets the requirements of their property and casualty insurance provider and any mortgage company requirements. This standard Texas property inspection report is not sufficiently comprehensive or detailed to satisfy these specific requirements. *
Thanks John for the info on this subject and to the others who have added more information
Thank you John for all of your information and taking up the gauntlet on this.
The main lines and I’ve only seen one brand in black and it had the name “Lightning” in it. I just tried to look it up and couldn’t find anything.
Newer black stuff supposedly is better.
http://www.tracpipe.com/CSST_Gas_Pipe_Products/CounterStrike_CSST/
ah…counterstrike. that’s what i’ve seen
Gastite makes a CSST pipe in black called Flashshield.
Here is an investigation report about CSST in DFW
That TV station has done a few reports on CSST. This is the first where they try to make the inspector look bad. Think about this:
- If CSST industry gets a mandatory rule passed does it possibly reduce their liability? A kind of “you were warned” defense on products they profited on.
- Will casualty insurance companies continue to try and subrogate the inspectors insurance? (been done).
- Will anti CSST lawyers try to net home inspectors (been done).
- If you only recommend an electrician are you assuming responsibility for installation? (recommend evaluation by trained plumber and electrician).
- Will today’s rules change and put the inspector back in the target zone? (advise buyer to contact the State Fire Marshal for recommendations and say “not inspected”. Delegate the liability to the Fire Marshall.)
- Would any inspector use CSST for anything but scrap iron after a CSST manufacturer advised a casualty insurance provider to go after the the inspector? (been done).
- Should you advise all casualty insurance providers via certified mail that your report may not be used to underwrite homes? (They might be an an enemy to watch)
- Are the CSST industry, Fire Marshal, anti CSST lawyers, casualty insurance companies and media making the inspector the pasty?
- Keep in mind this is on a product that has not been recalled and remains listed. If you say it is a bad material you could get sued by the seller or manufacturer.
- If you recommend the Fire Marshal to make THE recommendation you protect the consumer AND yourself. I will even give the buyer the Fire Marshals email and phone number.
- The TV report made the Texas Inspector Committee look bad. Fact is they have no authority and the entire thing should be elevated to the Commissioners (real estate agents) for final comment. Let the film crews point the cameras at the Commissioners.
- Lubbock Fire Marshall has banned new CSST installs but grandfathers existing installs. You would think a mandatory inspection would be required when a new water service is granted. Seems hypocritical. No new installs but everyone with the stuff does not even have to be warned by the industry who made the stuff. No, instead pass a rule that makes the home inspector responsible.
Good luck
Regarding CSST, obviously the NEC covers bonding of “other piping” which includes gas lines that are likely to become energized. However, as far as the NEC is concern this is taken care of by following the requirements of NEC Section 250.104(B) of the 2014 National Electrical Code.
I think it is a great move to have electricians (hopefully qualified electricians) look at the connection. The installation requirements from the CSST manufacturers are not under the scope of the electrical contractor since they are in the NFPA 54 Gas Code and other I-Codes that again are not part of the scope electricians deal with unless you write this into your local ordinance .
The reason you will not see anything regarding CSST in the NFPA 70 document is because the electrical industry feels it is already covered in their document adequately. If a gas line (CSST or hard pipe) is likely to become energized then it is to be bonded per 250.104(B)…but not for the same reason the manufacturers of CSST want it grounded which is due to lightning issues.
Part V of the NEC deals with bonding, the concept here is to remove potential fault current from metal parts,providing an effective path back to the source to facilitate the operation of an overcurrent protective device, not to remove lightning from the CSST raceway.
So what is likely to become energized mean anyway?..well, if I have a gas appliance with an electric ignition which has both the gas line (maybe CSST) running to it and also a 120V branch circuit then the likelihood of that gas line being energized is likely…but having a piece of NM-B Cable laying on an exposed gas line is not considered likely to energize it.
With that said, if the branch circuit as an EGC with it, terminated properly at the mutual appliance then 250.104(B)(1) is satisfied. This is all that the electrician can attest too.
Sadly enough many electricians have no idea what CSST is because they have never dealt with it, the NEC does not specifically deal with it other than to do what I previously mentioned. So in many cases they don’t even know that a specific type of clamp has to be used and so on. In other words, even the electrical community needs assistance in knowing what CSST is.
The good news is I have been elected as one of the technical subject matter experts for the State of Texas starting next year. Maybe I will get involved in helping educate the industry…who knows.
But for the record, some manufacturers of CSST are now selling a new CSST that is called “counter-strike”, it has a carbon based jacket and it does not need to have the 6 AWG conductor installed as it says in the I-Codes and NFPA 54 Gas Code. It is still CSST and unless those codes change the wording…the #6 AWG CU conductor is still required…
Do I think the #6 AWG makes a difference on those products in a direct lightning strike…versus a properly bonded gas pipe to a properly sized EGC and GES system of a dwelling…well ask me and I might tel you.
Thanks Paul, keep us posted.
Update
- A home built 2004. Met code when built.
- Inspector did Home Inspection around 2010
- House fire a year later, lightning. CSST alleged.
- CSST lawyer in Dallas surfs fire reports for opportunity. They have task force web site dedicated to seeking CSST claims.
- Casualty insurance seeks recovery from manufacturer.
- Manufacturer specifically points casualty insurance to home inspector saying he did not meet Texas standards. (wrong)
- Casualty insurance sues inspector. Inspectors client not involved.
- Very strong defense available.
- TREC states in every report that it is not suitable for 3rd party, page 1.
- TREC states statute does not require or intend the inspector know code or inspect to code.
- Copyright report possibility. Begs question: did insurance company rely on copyright material to mitigate their claims loss without permission?
- Inspectors insurance carrier indicates they will stand firm and deny
- Inspectors insurance settles on 1st day of mediation. Cheaper to settle than defend.
- Confidential settlement. No party admits guilt.
- I was told the risk of future subrogation is minimal. I disagree and believe a precedent was set.
- Precedent - you can meet TREC standards, you can have effective contract with client, 3rd party can sue and your insurance will settle. Really nothing new.
- More importantly a manufacturer intentionally and very specifically pointed casualty insurance to the inspectors insurance. I have the letter. The manufacturer torched the inspector.
- I hear the inspector still has a policy and can work. His carrier did what insurance does. Make problems go away. The E&O provider is not the problem.
Although not fail safe; consider disclaiming casualty insurance and mortgage underwriting in the report. Furthermore offer the service.
Now that the insurance company settled, it looks even more sinister that the csst mfrr’s thru the inspector under the bus. These same mfrrs appear to have bought off the national fire marshalls according to their website. Texas Firemarshall, mfrr and lobbyist showed up in force twice at the Texas Real Estate Commissions door trying to make the inspectors responsible for Texas CSST homes.
I hope the rest of the country is listening. The CSST people goofed on their initial manufacturers installation specs and are spending time and money trying to make others clean it up.
Those who should take care not to get fried are; inspectors, electricians and existing homeowners with CSST. This is cowardly.
Based on what I have learned the inspector was not in violation of the Texas Standards. IMO the allegation was taken out of context by Ward using an excerpt of the Standards.
What seems imperative is how Ward, the CSST manufacturer, turned the case towards a home inspector who did not profit from CSST manufacture or installation. Ward did not point the lawyers to Pulte Homes or the plumber who installed the CSST. It begs the question “Why didn’t Ward blame the people who bought and installed their product? Why didn’t Ward blame the code authority who approved the original 2005 installation?” I invite their explanation.
Please see the attached document. I am surprised the CSST manufacturer, Ward, blamed the inspector. It seems self destructive.
WHY would any inspector say anything good about a WARD product? WHY would any electrician or plumber inspect an existing CSST installation if they too could get blamed? WHY would any plumber or HVAC person use these products? WHY is CSST being sold at the box stores if it requires professional installation?
Ward products? USAA products? I will not approve anything these companies sell rather I will say NOT INSPECTED and refer the client to the Ward or USAA to verify conditions to their satisfaction.
CSST? Why would an inspector refer an electrician who may end up being blamed by a manufacturer and sued by a property insurance company? I like electricians too much to subject them to the risk Ward and USAA poses. I am referring all CSST to State Fire Marshal Chris Connealy 512-305-7900, Fire.Marshal@tdi.texas.gov (Sorry Chris but get ready for all 2400 Texas inspectors to do the same).
The following attachment is redacted as a courtesy. I will post it in its entirety in the future. Talk to your lawyer to see how you can handle this risk. Its not the first time it has happened and it may happen more often. The message is clear, property insurance and some manufacturers are a threat to home inspectors.
As far as the Fire Marshall’s are concerned? I do not have a clue what motivates them to issue warnings on products that have not been officially declared unsafe or defective.
John,
Thank you for the update on this subject. It should be noted that the insurance underwriter (their legal team) has had an easy job of taking the convoluted piece of trash called the Texas SOP and used it to their advantage. This is not the only potential item in the SOP that can unduly cause Texas Inspectors problems!
With regards to your suggestion of referring consumers to the State Fire Marshal that is an excellent idea! I have used a similar wording for the ridiculous AFCI reporting requirement and have been sending consumers to TREC ever since it was implemented. Also with regards to your suggestion I think it would be in the interest of Texas Inspectors to all utilize the same report wording. To that end I have taken your original wording and made some changes. Hopefully this can be the basis for the creation of a common report warning statement that all Texas Inspectors use.
As you can see I have also added two more contact points regarding CSST information. There is no reason why the additional two contact points can not be involved with a consumer’s due diligence efforts to ensure their CSST installation is not a safety hazard to them and their family. After all the two additional contacts are the ones that drafted these inspection requirements and are complaining about Inspectors missing these inspection requirements.
Thanks for the updates Mike, John, and Emmanuel. This is excellent information for all Texas Inspectors. I will be incorporating it into my reporting.