Thread: CSST info document

What's your opinion on using this document in inspection reports to provide information to clients about the known issue with CSST?

Do you think the information is good and worthy of inclusion in inspection reports?

Similar Threads:

• CSST bonding
• Inspection clearing document
• Check those CSST connections
• Infrared training info
• CSST Class Action Settlements???

problem with CSST is worse than you think.....

JURY RULES THAT CSST IS A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT IN LANDMARK CASE : Subrogation & Recovery Law Blog

Originally Posted by Joseph Hagarty

problem with CSST is worse than you think.....

JURY RULES THAT CSST IS A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT IN LANDMARK CASE : Subrogation & Recovery Law Blog

It is still allowed by code, as such I still pass it (as the AHJ) as long as it is installed properly (usually takes 2-3 inspections before the contractor gets it right and the inspection passes).

Originally Posted by Joseph Hagarty

problem with CSST is worse than you think.....

JURY RULES THAT CSST IS A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT IN LANDMARK CASE : Subrogation & Recovery Law Blog

I've been aware of that article too Joe. Citing specific jury cases is not my idea of a responsible insert for an inspection report though.

but a court ruling
that the product is defective
warrants inclusion..

A federal Court decision has declared the product DEFECTIVE

let the client decide from that point moving forward...

Originally Posted by Joseph Hagarty

but a court ruling
that the product is defective
warrants inclusion..

A federal Court decision has declared the product DEFECTIVE

let the client decide from that point moving forward...

Can you reference the federal Court decision in any documentation? I think the link you already shared is a civil case.

Until the CPSC bans it and the IRC prohibits it, it will continue to be sold and installed in the US. So the question asks, why have they not banned it if this single court case is so overwhelming? I think part of that is the knowledge that one single case can often be swayed by a crafty lawyer to a not so proper decision. When deciding which materials/systems are to be approved for gas piping consider the following:
-how many homes per day/week/ month/ yr go up in flames as a direct cause of this product installed as designed with no external influence?
-is the mechanism of failure to be a condition of normal daily operation when installed as designed?
-Do other gas piping alternatives suffer failures that result in fire/explosion and if so, by what mechanism?

You see, before you should demonize a product, you need to look at it holistically. The losses of concern around CSST are with regards to lightning, which is an unnatural occurance. Lightning virtually always causes fire and catastrohic damage to homes it strikes. Lightning does not always cause fire/ explosion in every home with CSST. CSST is tested and performs very well afainst nail and screw penetration injuries unlike copper. CSST has joints that are listed for use in concealed spaces unlike the alternative piping materials. CSST allows for manifolds that provide greater safety when a bank of shutoffs are installed at one central point. CSST can be installed with far less cutting and damage to framing and other building systems.

I could go on but for now I just don't buy into this witch hunt on CSST and yes, I have investigated fire losses associated with this product. I've also investigated fire lossess associated with copper, plastic, steel and rubber.

When I see CSST, I mention verbally and in my reports that this type of piping was the subject of a court case and was determined to be a defective product but that is where it ends and no recommendations or recalls have been issued. I feel mentioning that it was the subject of a court case is absolutely warranted.

I mention it primarily as a CYA thing in case my client hears something about it so they are not surprised or caught off guard. I've had maybe one client express concern and look into it further.

I bet CSST has been the subject of multiple court cases and I have no problem mentioning that in my report. I'm not sure referencing a specific case is the right thing to do though. I just stay general with it.

What about the document in my first post? What do any of you think about the information in it? Your opinions on it was the reason for this thread and thus far, not a single person has commented on it.

Bob - Lightning is an unnatural occurrence?

FWIW, according to the National Fire Protection Assoc., average annual deaths from house fires started by lighting is 11 of 4428 fires (.3%), while deaths involving natural or LP gas were 43 of 2110 (2%).
(NFPA :: Research :: Fire reports :: Major causes)

John, I appreciated the link. Interesting that the lightning doesn't have to be a direct hit to have an effect.

I would be shocked if any of my clients were to read a document of that length that I included in my reports.

I simply check if it is run correctly where visible (meaning terminates only at stationary appliances) and grounded.

Included in the report is going to be a comment to be careful drilling into walls.

John,I think including a document with local regulations or install requirements is a great way to not worry someone about a legal products we have personal opinions on but is a good way to arm them with knowledge to eliminate fear.

Originally Posted by Robert Foster

I would be shocked if any of my clients were to read a document of that length that I included in my reports.

Just for the record, all my reports are delivered electronically. I do not print out on site. I have had to mail a printed copy twice in the last 4 years due to clients that did not have email access.

I don't include the document itself in the report, but rather insert a link to it. This way, the info is available if they want to get it but the link method keeps the information from interfering with the main body content of the report.