fyrmnk

I document if they are satisfactory at inspection, with a blurb that all I do is test one cycle, don't check cleaning ability, etc. (just a couple sentences). Similar for other appliances (I do the same on fridges regarding just seals, and cold on fridge side, freezing on freezer side). It saved me on an electric range last year. I operated it at inspection, documented all the burners operated by the controls. A few months later the buyers moved in and it didn't work. Advised them to see what happened to it while the seller was there because it worked at inspection.

Link to press release: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11327.html Main link: http://www.cpsc.gov/info/drywall/index.html FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 15, 2011 Release #11-327 CPSC Hotline: (800) 638-2772 CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908 HUD Media Contact: (202) 708-0685 CPSC Completes Final Studies to Help Affected Homeowners Remediate Problem Drywall WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) today released updated remediation (pdf) guidance for homeowners with problem drywall. The guidance calls for the replacement of all: problem drywall; smoke and carbon monoxide (CO) alarms; electrical distribution components, including receptacles, switches and circuit breakers, but not necessarily wiring; and fusible-type fire sprinkler heads. The updated remediation guidance is based on studies just completed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on potential long term corrosion effects of problem drywall on select gas components (pdf), fire sprinkler heads (pdf) and smoke alarms (pdf). CPSC and HUD staffs believe these final studies that resulted in an update of the remediation guidance, along with previously-issued identification guidance (pdf), will enable homeowners to comprehensively remediate those homes containing problem drywall with potentially lower costs than by following the previous remediation guidance. Key Findings The key finding is that none of the studies performed at NIST on smoke alarms, fire sprinkler heads, or gas service piping found corrosion associated with problem drywall that provided evidence of a substantial product safety hazard, as defined by the Consumer Product Safety Act. Corrosion of gas service piping was uniform and minimal compared to the thickness of pipes. Some smoke alarms and fire sprinkler heads showed small changes in performance due to accelerated corrosion, but these changes were generally within accepted industry standards. As a result, CPSC and HUD no longer recommend the removal of gas service piping in homes with problem drywall. This change may reduce the cost of remediation for many homes. In addition, the agencies no longer recommend that glass bulb fire sprinkler heads be replaced in homes. However, the agencies recommend that both glass bulb sprinkler heads and gas distribution piping in affected homes be inspected and tested as part of the remediation to make sure they are working properly; any test failures should be corrected according to all applicable building codes. The agencies do recommend the replacement of all fusible-type fire sprinkler heads, because one fusible-type sprinkler head sample that had been exposed to accelerated corrosion did not activate when tested. The agencies note that this type of sprinkler head is generally found in commercial, rather than residential, applications and that the sole failure could not be causally linked to the problem drywall. In addition, CPSC staff continues to recommend that homeowners replace smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms as part of remediation. Exhaustive Investigation CPSC’s investigation into problem drywall to help affected homeowners began in early 2009 and involved significant agency resources. CPSC’s investigation of problem drywall has been driven by sound science and has involved HUD, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as members of the Federal Interagency Task Force on Problem Drywall. CPSC and HUD met with deeply-impacted homeowners, responded to correspondence, and kept members of Congress informed about our progress during this time period. CPSC developed contracts to research and test problem drywall, visited Chinese mines and manufacturers, hosted a public website to keep the public informed about new developments, and devoted thousands of staff hours and millions of dollars to these activities. As part of the effort to determine if there were any health or safety effects associated with problem drywall, the agency contracted with several highly-respected technical organizations, including Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Environmental Health & Engineering Inc. (EH&E), Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), NIST, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). LBNL used specially-built chambers to measure chemical emissions from drywall samples. In the second phase of its work, which is being released today, LBNL (pdf) evaluated the effects of different temperature and humidity conditions, as well as the effects of time and coatings of paint or plaster, on the emissions. A prior LBNL (pdf) study found considerably higher hydrogen sulfide emission rates from some, but not all, Chinese drywall samples compared to North American samples. The current LBNL study found that increases in temperature and humidity corresponded with increased emission rates of the most reactive sulfur gases, that emissions were significantly reduced over time (compared with its prior testing), and that coating the problem drywall samples did not result in differences in emissions compared to uncoated samples. EH&E conducted CPSC’s 51-home study (pdf) on emissions and corrosion in problem drywall homes. The studies identified elevated levels of hydrogen sulfide in problem drywall homes. The studies also showed a strong association between the presence of hydrogen sulfide and metal corrosion in the problem drywall homes. SNL exposed smoke alarms, electrical components, gas piping, and sprinkler heads to concentrated levels of gases representative of problem drywall emissions, to simulate decades of exposure. SNL analyzed the effects of corrosion on the electrical components and found no degradation in performance and no acute safety events during testing. NIST analyzed the type and depth of corrosion resulting from the simulated aging, as well as other samples taken from homes with problem drywall, and evaluated whether the corrosion would impact the proper functioning of smoke alarms, gas distribution piping, and fire sprinklers. Another study being released today, that was conducted by the USGS (pdf), found no evidence of microbiological activity or a microbiological source of sulfur-gas emissions from gypsum rock or problem drywall, including samples taken from affected homes. As part of the investigation, CPSC requested that CDC consider undertaking a comprehensive study of any possible long-term health effects. In February 2011, CDC indicated that the best scientific evidence available at that time did not support undertaking a long-term health study. Concluding Our Investigation To date, CPSC has received 3,905 reports from residents of 42 states and the District of Columbia, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico, who believe their health symptoms or the corrosion of certain metal components in their homes are related to problem drywall. CPSC believes there may be as many as 6,300 U.S. homes with problem drywall. CPSC has been focused on providing answers and guidance for homeowners based on its scientific work, and other federal agencies have worked to provide relief to homeowners. For example, based on information provided by CPSC, the IRS allows certain impacted taxpayers whose homes meet the CPSC's problem drywall identification criteria to treat damages from corrosive drywall as a casualty loss, and provides a "safe harbor" formula for determining the amount of the loss. In addition, HUD advised its Federal Housing Administration-approved mortgage lenders that they may offer forbearance for borrowers confronted with the sudden effects of damaging drywall in their homes. Going forward, CPSC staff continues to work with voluntary standards organizations to develop improved standards for drywall to prevent this type of problem from reemerging. The standard setting body ASTM International Inc. is also moving to require that all drywall sheets are marked with the manufacturer’s name or a unique identification code, the manufacture date, and the source materials. As the federal investigation into problem drywall concludes, CPSC staff believes that the extensive research and testing have been successful in defining the scope of the problem drywall issue, in producing identification and remediation protocols, and in providing homeowners with all the assistance possible within the agency’s jurisdiction and appropriated funds authority. The agency will continue to provide information to and work with members of Congress and agency partners to support policy options that may be beneficial to impacted homeowners. For additional findings from the Interagency Drywall Task Force’s investigation, visit www.DrywallResponse.gov

I created a free survey on Surveymonkey and email out the link after the inspection and report, and it is completely confidential, which I believe leads to more honest answers. Been doing it over a year and really like it. I have a portions where they can add comments and feedback and include the comments on my website. Helps the ego if nothing else

Another thumbs up for Faststone. After seeing all the talk about it here quite some time ago I've been using it all the time and love it. The software is very simple to use.

That would be my concern as well, as well as the soffit vent entry. I would point the risk out to the buyer, tell them my recommendation stands regardless of it being allowed by the AHJ, and let them decide what they do about it. You can lead a horse to water...

FWIW, in my area on both sides of the state line 99.99% of new construction fans vent next to a ridge vent. At least in my area, I haven't seen any problems from it being done (not saying it's right, just haven't seen problems from it). I used to push to have people get them vented direct to the exterior on inspections, but have never seen any issues on 30+ year old houses without the extensions even ever being near the ridge vents (my own included). I now just recommend they extend them next to a ridge vent if the attic ventilation is done properly.

It's not just the conduit settling leaving the conductors exposed, it's also the potential issue in the can if they didn't leave enough slack to accomodate the movement.

Hmmm, never seen them place the fireplace thermostat that close before, though it would certainly cut down on reaching the set temp Most in my area just use the light switch only and turn it off when they're done, but one's that had the thermostat had them across the room (though I rarely see them). Certainly don't want to actually try to heat with it too much unless you just like giving money to the gas company. Have seen some with wireless remote control thermostats where they could just sit it near them and maintain the temp they wanted.

Never heard of them in this area, but while searching came across uniquebreakers.com which sells breakers for them as well as many obsolete panels, claiming they're tested to UL standards.

I'm in. Missed the original post back when it was first posted. Thanks for the bump!

While I can't provide any insight on the post-flood inspections, I did go through the '93 flood on the Missouri. My parents had 12' of water, and even some of the other homes I helped in with lower water depths, the outcome was still the same. Basically, everything had to be gutted, tons of mud shoveled out, and in several of the homes, basically stripped to the framing and start over. Not sure of what all depths you're dealing with, but if you are first to go in to start evaluating, watch for snakes and such in the attics. My parents had one in their home. Thoughts are with you all, I never want to relive another flood like that again.

Great discussion. In any leak (natural gas or propane) there will always be areas that are too rich to burn, too lean to burn, and just right. Problem is, O2 levels change depending on how much air is introduced into the areas. Take Scott P's crawlspace. It was too rich to burn in the fog and likely displaced the oxygen as it filled the space, but opening the access now introduces a new air source, and can bring areas into the ignitable range. On leaks (doesn't matter if it's NG or LP or any other flammable), if we hit 10% of the LEL, we back out until it's ventilated. That sounds very cautious, but if we hit 10% as we are entering, then somewhere farther in, it is in the range, and on major leaks, areas that were too rich to burn due to displacing O2, can now be in the range due to the air we introduce when opening the door. We also plug sheered off natural gas lines. It's too rich at the source to burn, but somewhere downstream it is in the range, so we also factor in where it's going and where it is likely pooling. For us on NG in homes, we go to the attic as soon as we can, as it will collect in poorly ventilated attics. LP, we also thoroughly check crawls and basements, as that is where it will collect. To reiterate, I don't think any appliances are more dangerous than the others. I simply recommend LP detectors in basements because like Scott P's scenario, it collects low and occupants never smell it if they don't go there. NG migrates up through the living areas and is usually smelled by the occupants. I also agree, gasoline vapors worry me more. I like plugging natural gas leaks much more than patching leaking gasoline tanks. Not trying to thread drift and I know this isn't really home inspection related, but to really jack things up, underground leaks are even worse. They travel anywhere and everywhere, and often scrub the odorant out (NG and LP are odorless, they add the odorant so people will smell leaks). We run tons of those from underground boring and find readings in homes it's entered with no odor at all. By policy we check every building within 200' of an undergroung break (comes in through meter cans, around water and sewer lines that are poorly sealed, etc.).

I don't believe propane appliances are any more dangerous than natural gas at all and never said they were. I'm referring to the propane gas service and it's physical properties that it is much heavier than air, and an alarm is a simple and cost effective way to gain extra safety in the event of a leak. I handle many, many natural gas related runs because that is what we have in 99.9% (give or take) of the homes in my City, but have experienced propane buildup in basements from gas grills malfunctioning up against a house a time or two, though that is rare. I simply said propane IS heavier than air and will pool in a basement in the event of a leak in a propane serviced home. Makes no difference to me if anyone else makes the safety recommendations, but I still will. I have seen far too many fatalities and damage done in "Code Compliant" homes, buildings, and autos. Code compliant to me does not mean there aren't still things that can be safer. I also always flag any homes that don't have smoke detectors under 10 years old or in the locations listed in current standards to be replaced and brought up to current standards including hard wiring and battery backup(if not already done), since all detector manufacturers recommend replacement at 10 years. It's not a requirement to update the homes, but I'd sure rather people know about it and know the fact that it beeps doesn't mean it works properly in a fire, or that just because there's one in a hallway or on each level doesn't mean they will have adequate warning. It's up to them to accept or dismiss my recommendations, and I want them to make an educated decision. Each to their own.

I just make a general recommendation for the alarm similar to also recommending carbon monoxide alarms, letting them know the safety risk and the simple added safety that they can gain. We have very little propane here in my general inspection area, so I only occasionaly deal with it, but never had anyone not understand the potential risks and the simple ways to deal with it.

The original structure was 40 years old, but it has been completely remodeled from the ground up and had the additions to it. Chimneys were all new. Been under construction for 2 years. It was billed as new from the ground up (foundation remained). Unfinished basement was 3400 sq. ft' with about 7000 sq ft' living area on two floors. Thanks, Kevin

There is no national code requirement prohibiting LP appliance installations below grade. The drain thingy in the diagram is nonsense. LP could only pool "like water" in a completely sealed chamber that lacked any air movement (it isn't gasoline vapor). A LP leak is the same as a NG leak, above grade or below grade. With the correct amount of oxygen present it can ignite. I've never heard of any prohibition of propane appliances below grade either (must admit I haven't researched it much as it's not common for propane here), but have seen them installed in basements (on homes with basements of course). Again why I recommend the detector/alarm. However, with all due respect, propane is about 1 1/2 times the weight of air and the gas WILL pool in a basement in a leak there, and will actually flow down hill (as will any gas heavier than air) when leaking outside, and depending on grading, can actually seep into the basement from an outside leak. Natural gas is lighter than air and rises, often alerting occupants of an inside leak when they smell the mercaptan additive. Propane will sit in a basement unless something is blowing around and churning it up. The concentration with air only affects when it can ignite, not it's vapor density (temperature will though). Gasoline vapors are definitely heavy and will pool as well, and worry me a lot more, but propane does have that risk. Worst house explosion I've ever seen was from gasoline vapors when someone thought they'd torch a house, not taking the vapor buildup as they were pouring it through it into account (I think he learned his lesson). [:-dunce] For the record I'm not a chemical expert, but I am a full time firefighter/hazmat tech in addition to owning my business, and base a lot of my recommendations on personal experiences.

Although not related to your question, it's also good to recommend they have a propane gas detector/alarm installed in the lowest level/basement IMHO. With propane being heavier than air, you could have a large amount accumulate and go boom long before anyone would smell it in the living area if they get a leak.

Thanks for the replies. The reglet cut in is what I recommended, just haven't seen it directly into the stone, just the block below the stone then starting stone above it. I assumed that would be okay, but just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I was overlooking with doing that. It looked like limestone, it is all brand new. Looks like they direct adhered it to the block, but couldn't see how far down the stone went in this application with the flashing over it. The rest of the house had stone veneer with a drainage plane and weeps, which was actually done nicely. But boy, the roof sure was lacking effort. There are a lot of wood roofs around here, just not usually done new anymore since so many have burned off in my area with lightning and wind, as well as spreading from one house to another. Took quite the scurrying and "Spiderman" efforts to make it all the way up with the pitches (and a lot of looking around to see if anyone saw the awkward moments), but figured there would be some issues with the size of this roof and house. Thanks again. Kevin

Here's a couple pics. Click to Enlarge 63.29 KB Click to Enlarge 65.91 KB Click to Enlarge 92.78 KB

Thanks Robert, I have seen that one, but it still involves going into the block itself, which I'm not certain will be an option. It very well may be, but until they pull off the existing flashing I won't be able to tell for sure, so was wondering about cutting directly into the stone with the counter flashing, similar to cutting into brick. Thanks again. Kevin

Hi all, looking for a good detail on properly flashing a stone clad masonry chimney. Did a 2.2 mil house that was newly remodeled/built from the ground up. The roofer just surface fastened and sealed the flashing to the stone on the chimneys and of course it is already pulling away and gapped. I recommended removing the existing flashing on all the chimneys and properly cutting it into the masonry instead of just surface fastening, but haven't had much luck finding a good picture of a proper install except for ones that have access to the block. I couldn't see below the lip of the flashing to tell if they held the stone short of the roof line to where they can make the cut into just the blocks. Basically looking for a diagram for going directly into the stone in the event it isn't stopped short of the roof line. Can grooves be cut directly into the stone in the event the block isn't accessible? Will try to post pics soon. Thanks in advance.

Don't recall seeing this exact pdf on here, so here is the link for the library. Apologize in advance if it's already been posted. http://www.lennox.com/pdfs/Lennox_Model ... lature.pdf

Breaker tie or tie for the breakers is how I've always referenced them. Can't say for certain it's a technically correct name though but it always has gotten the point across.

In 9 years I've never had any issues with giving the clients the full report. That's what they pay me for, to provide ALL the info. A simple explanation of the test is all it takes. I'm really surprised states that regulate radon testing don't require it if they don't, the training I've had says to provide the full report. Although the EKG analogy doesn't really apply IMO, you could use blood work as it also deals with numbers. And yes, every year I have blood work, I expect and receive copies of the bloodwork itself with the numbers, not just a cover letter saying everything is fine. It's not up to me to just provide what I think the client can handle, it's up to me to fully disclose what I find out and what I'm paid for, IMHO.

Just curious, but how do you get by with that? Don't your clients ever want a copy of the actual test results they paid for? Or does the seller before they commit to mitigation? Never heard of someone not providing the full test results so was just wondering.