Brandon Chew

The rodent or its nest could also be on the air distribution side of the heat exchanger. I hope it's not anything more than debris, somewhere, in the system.

Are those real stones held by mortar or adhesive? Or is it a one-piece plastic faux-stone arch? If real stone I'd call it a safety hazard. It's ugly no matter what it is made from.

I think those balusters look beautiful just the way they are. Don't you know that true beauty is not orderly and symmetrical. [] You guys are rocking my chi. []

Thanks for the response. Here is what was confusing to me. You began by saying "Now, we will discuss situations where a fully functional GFCI device will not provide protection from shock or electrocution." Then there were three examples. The first was the human filament. The second was hitting a secondary power source. The third, assuming the GFCI was functioning properly, is an example of the GFCI doing what it is designed to do. In that case, you wouldn't get a shock any worse than you would get from a normally functioning GFCI, would you? I agree if the GFCI malfunctions then there is a danger of electrocution. There is also a danger of electrocution in that scenario if instead of a GFCI receptacle, joe homeowner wired that exterior outlet with a three-prong receptacle on a two wire circuit (without equipment ground), and there is no GFCI breaker. Now, whether or not you see a "no ground" label on the receptacle, if you are careless and plug in your GFCI tester and press the button (thinking exterior receptacles are supposed to be on GFCI), you run the danger of getting a nasty shock just like you described. Lesson here would be if you plug in your three light GFCI tester and it lights up "open ground", don't push the GFCI test button on your little tester. You are about to send some current out the ground pin on your tester that is going to be looking for a way back to ground.

Me too. I'm a visual learner. Anyone have a picture or a cross section diagram of this system?

Great topic, and I'm writing this into my business side SOP. I'm with Jim and Les on this one. That's how it works in the engineering world, from which I came. Those of us in states with HI licensing usually have the state telling us who our client is. Here's the state of New York telling me: I'm not sure why the "seeks to engage" part is in there. It seems to just muddy the water. The state of New York also tells me: and Then this is followed by a lot of the "avoid conflict of interest" stuff that you find in several of the major HI association Code of Ethics. In my company I want to drive home the message that I am client focused and that I am independent of all others who may be involved in the real estate transaction. With the above in mind my rules are: My client is the person who retains my services and to whom I will deliver my report. My client does not get an inspection unless they (or a legally authorized representative of my client) sign my contract. My client pays me for my services. It does not matter to me where the client gets the money that they give to me for my services (as long as it was obtained by legal means!). My client does not get my report unless I am paid. I want to have my payment in hand before I leave the property, but I also want to allow for some flexibility. So if I don't receive payment within 5 days of the inspection, I'll fire my client for breach of contract and terminate our transaction. Because the inspection is usually a contingency in the real estate contract and because I'm marketing to mid to upper income clients, I don't expect this to happen very often. If it does, I'll eat my time invested in the inspection and report and walk away. My time is valuable and I'd rather spend it on the next inspection than chasing after a deadbeat client. My client is placing trust in me when they hire me, so I'll return the favor by placing trust in them that they will pay me for a job well done. Mike - I don't know how it works in your state, but a lot of times a contract is not valid unless something of value is exchanged between the parties. So you might want to consider changing that $0 to $1.

Here is my boilerplate on this issue. Feel free to steal it or to help me tweak it to make it better. I don't like the "replace with GFCI and label 'No Ground'" option so I don't mention it. Even though it is labeled "No Ground", if someone has a three prong plug, and they want to plug it in, and there is a three slot receptacle nearby, then they are going to use it no matter what the label says. The GFCI will protect people from getting shocked but will not protect the equipment that needs a ground. The electrician can discuss that option with the client if he wishes to, while he is "properly installing three-slot receptacles where needed".

I'd call that an imminent threat to life and safety. How many of you guys would pick up the phone to tell the AHJ about these decks in the subdivision? As a humanitarian, I'd make the call because I think it is the right thing to do. What is our obligation as an inspector in situations such as this?

Ceramic coatings are a highly effective reflective insulator. They are used to line the insides of industrial furnaces, rocket nozzles, and they keep the space shuttle from burning up on re-entry. They have a proven and effective track record when sprayed on metal roofs and CMU walls of large industrial and commercial buildings. A 7 mil dry thickness is equivalent to an R value of about 19. The payback period is good when you are in a hot climate and the reduction in solar gain results in savings on air conditioning costs. I don't know enough about them to judge the payback period in cold climates. I'm not familiar with the application of these coatings in residential construction. I think that just spraying it in places where you would normally find fiberglass insulation could cause trouble and should be carefully considered. Fiberglass insulation slows the passage of heat while the ceramics reflect it. In residential construction we have wall and roof assemblies with layers of many different types of materials. I suspect that where the reflective layer is placed within those assemblies could be very important, and if it was in the wrong place, it may adversely affect the service life or performance of those other layers. Like vapor retarders, it's also possible that the best place to put the reflective layer might vary based upon what climate zone you are in. Brandon

This piqued my curiosity and I've done a little more research into it. There is some speculation that building traps were originally required as a means to keep sewer rats from getting into the home. A more likely reason is that sewer gases can be foul smelling and corrosive. In situations where the generation of excessive sewer gases might be a problem, the building trap keeps them from corroding the building's plumbing (probably not much of an issue with ABS or PVC) or from stinking up the neighborhood as they are vented through the roof vents.

Hi Mike, I've read though the discussion of this over at the JLC forum and for what it is worth, I think you are doing a great service for your clients in the way you are approaching this problem. Unfortunately, you are running up against a builder who is trying to strong-arm you into keeping your mouth shut. As an aside, I know that many HIs, builders, and tradespeople knock the municipal building inspectors by saying that the building inspectors cannot be sued. The situation you find yourself in is the primary reason why the building inspectors are protected. They are protected in order to keep the threat of lawsuits from compromising their judgment. It is not to protect them from incompetence. Any building inspector (or engineer in public service -- I was one for over 21 years) can be fired by their employer for screwing up or for abusing their authority. The situation for these homeowners as you have rightly pointed out is as follows (and you'll recognize some but not all of this in a post from another engineer at the JLC forum): The code says either build to the code and follow the manufacturers instructions, or do the engineering. The builder chose to not follow the manufacturers instructions and hired an engineer. The engineer says that what the builder plans to do will be ok. The AHJ, who typically is not a PE, relies on the engineer's PE that all is ok, and gives the ok to the builder. The manufacturer usually voids their warranty if their product is not installed per their instructions. If the builder follows the engineer's design, then the adequacy of this departure from the manufacturers instructions falls squarely on the shoulders of the engineer who gave the ok. ====================== I certainly hope there was more engineering in that PE's decision than "the manufacturer doesn't want you to mix engineered and sawn lumber because they want to sell more engineered lumber". Perhaps there is, and he hasn't disclosed it yet. There should be a really good reason for the builder wanting to do this, because I can't see the cost savings in the rim joist (by using sawn lumber) justifying the potential cost of correction, should the engineer be wrong. As an engineer, the logic behind the APA stance makes sense to me -- engineered and sawn lumber absorb and release moisture in different amounts and at different rates, resulting in differential movement between the two types of materials. I feel like I'm in good company since there seem to be several experienced HIs, engineers, builders, tradesmen and manufacturers that feel the same way. Further support comes from the "JLC Field Guide to Residential Construction - A Manual of Best Practice" which says in the section on wood I-joists: RS Means "Residential & Light Commercial Construction Standards" 2nd edition, 2002, also advises against using sawn lumber at the rim in I-joist construction. If I was a homeowner and I knew about this situation before I purchased the home, it would be a deal breaker for me. Based upon what I know about mixing sawn and engineered lumber within the load path, I wouldn't want to be the guinea pig for the builder's experiment on the structure of my home. If the experiment fails the fix could be costly. The homeowners who have already taken title to the home are in a difficult situation if the builder digs in his heels. It's going to take an independent engineer, one who has no dog in the fight between builder and manufacturer, and who is more qualified than the original engineer, to examine the as-built homes and the original engineer's work and render an opinion if this is ok or not ok. That opinion could come about as either speculation based upon theory of what might happen over time, or through failure analysis if symptoms of differential movement have already become apparent. If I was in your shoes and the builder started trying to muscle me, I'd begin contacting my former clients in that development, one at a time, explain the situation to them, ask them if it was ok if I disclosed their name and address to my other clients in the development, whisper the words "class action" in their ear, and suggest they start talking to their neighbors. BTW, if I ever start acting like one of the engineers that is posting in that thread at JLC, I want you and Chad to take turns smacking me upside the head until I come to my senses. Brandon

The building trap and vent is in the old NYS Code Manual with a note next to a schematic that says "provide building trap and fresh air inlet as above when required by building official". It is carried forward into the NY version of the IRC (currently based on the 2000 edition), with a change in the wording which now reads "Building (house) traps shall be prohibited, except where local conditions necessitate such traps as required by the code enforcement official." So, in NY, the decision is left to the individual AHJ and you will find them in some municipalities and not in others. The building trap/vent is completely separate from the regular plumbing vents that go through the roof and which are still required. The purpose and function of the building trap and vent is similar to the individual fixture trap and vent, except it is for the entire house. The building trap creates a water seal so that gases from the outside sewer line do not flow back into the house drain plumbing, and the vent is there to ensure the building trap functions properly. One difference between the building trap vent and the fixture vents is that the building trap vent is connected on the inlet side of the trap. Like Bill, I haven't been able to figure out yet what specific conditions warrant the use of the building trap in one jurisdiction and not in another. I suspect that the guy who made the original determination that they are needed for his municipality is either dead now or long retired. Without the building trap, gases from the sewer enter the house plumbing and are vented from the rooftop vents. With a properly functioning building trap, they don't get inside the home. I have a building trap and vent on my house. I've never smelled an odor coming from it when I've been working in my yard near it. Today was a calm day and I spent a good deal of time raking, mulching, and on my knees planting bulbs in a flowerbed with my nose about 2 feet away from the vent and I didn't smell any odors coming from it.

Hi Scott. It looks like the termination of the vent for the main building drain to me. In the basement, right near there, should be where the main building drain is exiting the house. There is probably a trap in that line and what you are looking at is where the vent for the trap exits the house. The net free area of that vent looks much too small for it to be for furnace & water heater combustion air. Brandon

My reply to your post assumes the case where you find a serious defect on your first inspection, but on your subsequent inspection of the same house for a different client, you are silent about it because it falls into the standard disclaimer of no longer being visible or readily accessible. The buyer after taking possession of the home discovers the defect. Once the lawyers get involved, even if you are not initially named in the suit, the fact that you performed both inspections is going to come out and your reports will be provided during the discovery process. When the lawyers compare the two reports at that point you are going to become a party to the suit. If I'm going to appear in court, I'd much rather be an expert witness than a defendent. Thanks everyone for the input. It really helps me to think through these situations before I find myself caught in the middle of one. I think it will be easy for me to keep my head straight if I continue to focus all of my energy into doing the best possible job I can do for my current client. Unless someone can come up with a down side that's bigger than pissing off a former client who is trying to hide something, I think I'll handle it in a way that is very similar to what Mike posted. I too am interested in hearing how this plays out for you Randy, and I wish for the best.

You are really asking two different questions with two different answers: 1) Which one is easiest to join? The easiest one to join would be one where all you really needed to do was fill out a form with your name and contact info and pay the fee (or exchange something of value like a camera lens). They accept your payment and say "welcome to the club". I've seen some associations reduce their membership fees and even waive them for new members, making it even easier to join (by lowering or eliminating the financial hurdle). 2) Which one is easiest to gain full membership? The answer to this question is not so straightforward. They all vary in the number and type of hoops you must jump through in order to become a full member. How easy it is to jump through those hoops depends on the individual who is doing the jumping. Another factor is how well the association monitors and enforces the "jumping through the hoops" before granting full member status. There is a third question which you haven't directly asked, but from your post it immediately jumps into the mind of many inspectors. 3) Which association is the easiest one from which you can obtain a "credential" that, with the associations name and blessing behind it, you can use to market your business to your customers? Again, this varies by the number of hoops you need to jump through and how hard it will be for you to jump through them. There is one association that excels in doing this because they have targeted that niche of inspectors who are seeking the answer to that question. But what real value does that credential have for your client if it is so easy for most people to obtain? The apparent success of that association in filling its niche draws the wrath of inspectors who have worked hard to earn the credentials which they have obtained, since the "easy" credential dilutes the value of their own credentials in the eyes of their potential customers. Are you really asking one of those questions, or are you planning to work in PA and are looking for advice and help to meet their regulatory requirement for membership in an association? I suspect you will not get more specific or helpful answers to your question unless you clarify what you are really asking and explain why you are asking it. Otherwise it just looks like you are dangling a baited hook, waiting for a bite, and hoping to enjoy the fight.

What if it is a flip house and defects that you saw in your previous inspection were no longer visible (because they are covered over) or their locations are no longer readily accessible? Do you say anything based on your prior knowledge of the home and if so what do you put in your current report about it? Example: One year ago you inspect a home with an unfinished basement and you find one of the foundation walls has a horizontal crack and is bowing inward. You recognize this as a serious structural issue and you recommend repairs by an SE or foundation contractor. You come back a year later and the basement is now finished with a cheap stud wall in front of the foundation wall. There's no way for you to see behind the new wall without tearing a hole in it. Now to complicate things a bit further, in my state our HI licensing law specifies our duty of care is to the client and says "Every such written report and the information contained therein shall be deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed without the express consent of the client." My knowledge of the problem with the foundation was obtained when I was under contract with the person who is now the seller. My current client is the buyer. I'm inclined to break this dilemma by disclosing my knowledge of the previous problem to my current client. If it has been fixed then the old client (seller) should have no problem with providing the proof it was fixed. If it hasn't been fixed and I don't say anything, and the new owner decides to remodel that room and finds the bad foundation, he's gonna sue everybody involved in the transaction. At that point you can bet that both of my reports would make it into evidence and me and the seller would be up a creek without a paddle. If it has not been fixed and I disclose my prior knowledge, the only person harmed is the seller (my old client). If he comes after me legally, who's gonna side with him when he says my disclosure prevented him from committing fraud?

Chad, I'd set it up as two simultaneous equations. First one would be to calculate the surface area of the side wall of a cylinder (the missing portion of the pipe if it extended all the way down to the floor). The other one would be to calculate the cross sectional area of the interior of the pipe. Set the two equations equal to each other and solve for H, the height of the cylinder (distance off the floor) as a function of the inside diameter of the pipe. However, this neglects to account for the pressure gradient between the inside of the pipe and the atmosphere, so if you want to get really fancy you'd need to factor that in. If you want me to get a pencil and my calculator out, it'll cost you $150/hour to watch me scribble and push the buttons. [] Les - I was just about to ask if anyone had ever actually seen a TPR valve release, and as usual you come to the rescue. I've seen the Watts video on what happens if you have no valve, I've seen leaky valves, and I've seen the aftermath of a release, but I've never seen one in the process of doing its job. If it is installed properly and functioning properly, based on its design I imagine that the release would be gradual, as either the temperature or the pressure slowly climbed over the trip point. But we all know that most homeowners do not test them regularly, like the manufacturers say they should, so they stick until the pressure or temperature gets high enough to break it free. So in reality it probably releases with some force behind it, until T or P falls below the set point and the valve closes again (if you are lucky). Anyone else have any first hand experience with TPR valves while they are actually performing their intended function? Brandon

The purpose of the sub-surface drain system is to collect and to convey water AWAY from the foundation. If you plumb the roof drainage system into the sub-surface drain system, runoff from the roof will cause the sub-surface drain system to work in reverse -- a lot of water will be applied to the soil right next to the footings. At best, this would cause elevated moisture levels in the basement or crawlspace. And at its worst, it could undermine the footings and cause structural damage to the home. The rest of this thread had me chuckling since it reminded me of many situations I have encountered while working in an office full of engineers. At about this point in the conversation I would chime in with "let's put away the micrometers guys, I have my chainsaw and we're only cutting firewood!" For most purposes, if you want to know the volume of water you will get running off of a roof you only need to know two things -- the "footprint" area of the roof surface and how much rain (total inches) -- and you need to make two assumptions -- the rain is falling straight down and all the rain that lands on the roof runs off. For a simple gable roof the footprint area is just the distance measured rake-to-rake multiplied by the horizontal distance measured from drip edge to drip edge (or the horizontal distance from ridge to drip edge if you want to do it for one side of the roof). runoff, gallons = (area, square feet)x(rainfall, inches)x(1 foot/12 inches)x(7.48 gallons/cubic foot) For Les' example, that comes out to a little more than 800 gallons per inch of rain, which is "close enough for government work". Now, if you want to get a lot more accurate than that, you'll need to factor in things like: -- the orientation of each roof plane with respect to the direction that the rain drops are falling (which brings in factors such as wind speed, wind direction, pitch of the roof, and orientation of the roof with respect to the wind direction) -- the surface area and dimensions of each roof plane instead of "footprint" -- the size of the raindrops and the intensity (rate) that the rain is falling -- the type of roof covering material (e.g., metal sheds almost all of the water while wood shingles or shakes absorb some of it) -- weather conditions for several days prior to the rainfall event (how dry is the roof covering when the rain began?) -- adjust the areas within the boundaries of the roof surfaces for things that would capture rainfall instead of allowing it to run off (open plumbing vents, uncapped chimneys) -- subtract off evaporation from the roof surface from the time the rain started until the last drop of runoff left -- add in how much water would be released from that which is stored on the roof surface in the form of accumulated snow or ice -- subtract off how much rain gets into the home through the leaky roof -- How much moss is growing on the roof and how thirsty is it? If you want to visualize how the direction the rain is falling and the orientation of the roof surface affects the runoff, you can try what I did. I took one of those 3x3 post-it notes and drew a series of parallel arrows on it that point in one direction. That's the rain falling (with intensity constant). I imagined the open top of my coffee cup is the roof surface. When I hold the post-it over the coffee cup and point the arrows straight down, they all go into the cup. If I rotate the post-it so the arrows move down and at an angle, and I put the lowest corner of the post-it on the rim of the cup, only some of the arrows go into the cup. The farther I move from vertical, the less arrows go into the cup. This is what happens when wind-blown rain strikes a flat roof. Now, if I hold the post-it steady at the same angle and put it on the rim of the cup, and I start rotating the cup toward the arrows, more arrows point into the cup. And if I rotate the cup away from the arrows, less go in. In this case, the rim of the cup represents one plane on a pitched roof and it shows what happens as the pitch varies (with rainfall intensity, wind direction, and roof plane surface area held constant). In reality, as the pitch of the roof increases, the surface area of the roof plane increases along with it, so try this again but imagine that the coffee cup is increasing in diameter as you rotate it farther away from vertical. Having said all of that, I'm sure that with not too much more effort we can get this thread to two pages. Kurt, how's your hair feel now? Oh, and I need to get some of those glass tube thingys too, and some plywood, and a garden hose ... Brandon

Hi Scott - welcome aboard. I don't have too much to add to what has already been posted. It looks like fungus caused by a combination of too much moisture and too little ventilation in the attic space. You might not be able to determine if it is history or an ongoing problem. I'd recommend they nuke it with BoraCare to make sure it is dead, if I found a moisture source like a bathroom fan that vented into the attic I'd tell them fix it, and if I thought the ventilation in that part of the attic was inadequate I'd tell them to improve it. Regarding moss on the shingles on the north side of the roof, I've seen that (and lichen) a lot around here and it is not related to what is going on inside the attic space; it is more a function of the particular location on the outside of the home and how much of the day it is in the shade. I think opinion is divided on whether it should be removed or just left alone. Ill-fated attempts to remove it can do more harm than good. Brandon

Regarding the deck in Bain's picture: Has the back of the house decided yet if it wants to join the deck on its journey down the hill? With that large overhang at the eaves, I also wonder how much of the roof load is supported by those posts and how much is cantilevered back to the wall of the house. Thanks for the links to the deck resources. Brandon

Kewl. That makes sense Les. It was overkill for residential so it was probably phased out once a cheaper but suitable alternative became available. I've only come across piping made of that material on chemical feed lines at factories. I'm always willing to learn so go right ahead with those history lessons! Brandon

Try thinking of it this way. It is the concentration (ppm) AND the duration of exposure that determines the health risk. So, you could be exposed to a high ppm of CO for a short period of time and be ok while a much lower ppm for a long enough time can kill you. Most fuel burning appliances will kick out some high levels of CO during startup until they reach their normal operating temperature. With gas ovens or ranges CO is usually not cause for concern unless the flame is out of adjustment (yellow), and even then the oven needs to be in use for a prolonged period of time. Every now and then you'll read in the paper about someone getting CO poisoning from using their oven to heat their home. Makes you wonder if the post meal snooze after the Thanksgiving meal is due to eating the turkey or cooking it ... Brandon

Yeah, I've seen it in a previous life. PVDC pipe is usually used in industrial applications to convey highly corrosive materials. Looks like somebody probably found some laying around and decided to plumb a house with it. Maybe they liked the color. I don't know if it is a listed material for potable water supply piping in homes, or what kind of glue is used to join it.

It might need a liner if the old flue was damaged enough to warrant a new liner instead of fixing the existing one, or if the existing flue is oversized for the new furnace.