| Article Index |
|---|
| November - December 2009 Inspector eNews |
| Page 2 |
| Page 3 |
| Page 4 |
| Page 5 |
| All Pages |
   |
|||||||||
|
November — December 2009 | Archives
|
|||||||||
|
Chairman's Message — Holiday Greetings to all CREIA Members and their families, Here we are entering the Holidays for our 32 year in association with each other as CREIA Members. That is quite an accomplishment for a voluntary organization. As with any new year we are facing new challenges. Mindful of the challenging economy, CREIA’s focus is on increasing our Membership benefits. Taking the results of the Membership Survey there will soon be an Inspection Business Survey. Please take the time to respond and reveal more of how we all conduct our inspections and business’s. Please also take the time to read this issue's article on our Standards of Practice written by Steve John. This is the first of a series on our SOP’s and Standards of Care in our profession. Education continues to be the most important concern our Membership expects CREIA to provide. So we are scheduling CREIA Roadshow educational events in each region of our state to be a cost effective alternative for you to stay current with the new code changes, get together with other inspectors and obtain your CEC’s. Our last event was Nov. 21 at San Mateo College w/Douglas Hansen. This event included proper electrical panel inspection training in keeping with the National Electric Code. Southern California Inspector’s are invited to Simpson Strong-Tie facility in Brea for a 4 hour presentation of decking on December 15th. Their decking expert is making this exclusive presentation for CREIA Members only. You will receive meals and drinks as with all our events, current Simpson catalogue, chance to tour their plant, update on pending legislation concerning our profession and 4 CEC’s for your $40.00 donation to the California Coalition of Home Inspectors. A large number of members have asked for a conference. Given the economy it made better sense to team with the ASHI Conference in Las Vegas in January for our big event of the year. This was the most cost effective way to provide our membership with the best educational and inspection business opportunities available. Next year we will provide new Roadshow’s by Peter Boyd who will be presenting a new Pool & Spa Roadshow that will include our the new CREIA Pool & Spa Standards of Practice. Michael Casey has developed a new day’s worth of Heating systems education to include systems never previously discussed such as hydronic forced air systems we so often see in condos. On yet another day Mike will cover Air Conditioning systems, principles, new codes, etc. Southern California Inspector’s are invited to Simpson Strong-Tie facility in Brea for a 4 hour presentation of decking on December 15th. Their decking expert is making this exclusive presentation for CREIA Members only. You will receive meals and drinks as with all our events, current Simpson catalogue, chance to tour their plant, update on pending legislation concerning our profession and 4 CEC’s for your $40.00 donation to the California Coalition of Home Inspectors. CREIA’s new website will be launched in January. Our primary objective is to drive more inspections to our inspectors. This will be accomplished by a search engine friendly inspector finder feature. ASK.CREIA.org has already generated more traffic and inspector requests in less time than any previous CREIA web presence with 2,200 inspector finder requests since its start. With an integrated log-in you will be able to quickly and easily navigate our entire web site. We are also saving a considerable sum annually which will be allocated to better serve our membership. Our Membership drive has been successful in drawing inspectors into our Association (for latest details click here members). The more CREIA inspectors in your area the better as the playing field will be leveled. More inspection’s are being done to our Standards of Practice and care. It is easier to compete with someone who is charging closer to the same price you are. This is one of the way’s we are planning to increase CREIA Members inspection market share in your area. More to come on this and other new member benefits in 2010. I am confident that we could not have come as far in the last 12 years without the able and sure guidance of Tyler Clydesdale our CEO. Tyler has been the backbone of CREIA. With a strong mixture of sadness and gratitude I have to announce that Tyler will be moving on to live his dream in the Smoky Mountains of Tennessee. He has been quietly developing a non-profit organization for blind and disabled animals. Please join me and our Board of Directors in thanking Tyler for his many years of devoted service, attention and competent care in guiding our organization. We wish the absolute best for you Tyler and that you may realize your dreams. Please visit their website at www.LoveHandlers.org for details and more information. In closing may we be mindful and appreciative of what we do have. Take the time and care to express our love of our Family and Friends. Take the opportunity to express gratitude to those we conduct business with. And let us not forget those less fortunate. Best and Warm Holiday Regards, Bill Parker, CREIA BOD Chairman
This Issue ... CREIA October 2009 BOD Meeting Synopsis (Members Only) CREIA Membership Drive November Update (Members Only) Old Friends and New Beginnings CREIA’s Contract and Standards of Practice – A Perspective Technical Article - Proper Dryer Venting & Maintenance The Key to Reduced Fire Risk Off the Net - Damage/Defects, Were They Reported on Prior to Your Inspection/Report? Home Safety, the Primary Duty of Home Inspectors Lessons in Risk Management: The Inaccessible Crawlspace Chinese Drywall Update - November 2, 2009
Old Friends and New Beginnings - A Final Word from Your CEO Hello CREIA Membership! At the recent October Board of Directors meetings it was announced that my last day, after almost thirteen years as CREIA’s CEO, would be December 17, 2009. I am most grateful for the opportunity to have been of service to CREIA and the California inspection profession, thank you for allowing this. I have watched the association and profession growth to new heights (there were only 330 members when I started at CREIA) and hopefully helped enhanced its member benefits, products and service over the years. Of course, this was not done alone and I am indebted to the many CREIA staffers with whom I have the pleasure of working over the years. CREIA will now be left in the best of care by terrifically talented Cella Flores at the headquarters. Please extend every kindness to her as she works through this transition. I am also deeply indebted to those who have supported CREIA through their services – folks such as Ellen Goodwin, Brian Hannigan, Paul Straznickas, Douglas Glass, Esq. and Kris Thompson, Esq. An extra special thanks to Greg Noyes for his friendship and kindness to me and to all the staff over these many years. I also wish to express my gratitude to the CREIA leaders - past and present - for their volunteerism and their support over the years. It has become fashionable to refer to the board as the “good old boys” at times, but please remember that “good” is the first word; many times I have observed these leaders giving back to the profession out of the goodness of their hearts for the good of the association. Every CREIA member and the state of California has benefitted from it.
Thank you all for your friendship over the years. All the best! Tyler Clydesdale Page 1 |
Congratulations! New Candidates Richard W Sarette New CCIs John L. Briere New Affiliates Ed Daher
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
November — December 2009 | Archives
|
|||||||||
|
Chairman's Message — Holiday Greetings to all CREIA Members and their families, Here we are entering the Holidays for our 32 year in association with each other as CREIA Members. That is quite an accomplishment for a voluntary organization. As with any new year we are facing new challenges. Mindful of the challenging economy, CREIA’s focus is on increasing our Membership benefits. Taking the results of the Membership Survey there will soon be an Inspection Business Survey. Please take the time to respond and reveal more of how we all conduct our inspections and business’s. Please also take the time to read this issue's article on our Standards of Practice written by Steve John. This is the first of a series on our SOP’s and Standards of Care in our profession. Education continues to be the most important concern our Membership expects CREIA to provide. So we are scheduling CREIA Roadshow educational events in each region of our state to be a cost effective alternative for you to stay current with the new code changes, get together with other inspectors and obtain your CEC’s. Our last event was Nov. 21 at San Mateo College w/Douglas Hansen. This event included proper electrical panel inspection training in keeping with the National Electric Code. Southern California Inspector’s are invited to Simpson Strong-Tie facility in Brea for a 4 hour presentation of decking on December 15th. Their decking expert is making this exclusive presentation for CREIA Members only. You will receive meals and drinks as with all our events, current Simpson catalogue, chance to tour their plant, update on pending legislation concerning our profession and 4 CEC’s for your $40.00 donation to the California Coalition of Home Inspectors. A large number of members have asked for a conference. Given the economy it made better sense to team with the ASHI Conference in Las Vegas in January for our big event of the year. This was the most cost effective way to provide our membership with the best educational and inspection business opportunities available. Next year we will provide new Roadshow’s by Peter Boyd who will be presenting a new Pool & Spa Roadshow that will include our the new CREIA Pool & Spa Standards of Practice. Michael Casey has developed a new day’s worth of Heating systems education to include systems never previously discussed such as hydronic forced air systems we so often see in condos. On yet another day Mike will cover Air Conditioning systems, principles, new codes, etc. Southern California Inspector’s are invited to Simpson Strong-Tie facility in Brea for a 4 hour presentation of decking on December 15th. Their decking expert is making this exclusive presentation for CREIA Members only. You will receive meals and drinks as with all our events, current Simpson catalogue, chance to tour their plant, update on pending legislation concerning our profession and 4 CEC’s for your $40.00 donation to the California Coalition of Home Inspectors. CREIA’s new website will be launched in January. Our primary objective is to drive more inspections to our inspectors. This will be accomplished by a search engine friendly inspector finder feature. ASK.CREIA.org has already generated more traffic and inspector requests in less time than any previous CREIA web presence with 2,200 inspector finder requests since its start. With an integrated log-in you will be able to quickly and easily navigate our entire web site. We are also saving a considerable sum annually which will be allocated to better serve our membership. Our Membership drive has been successful in drawing inspectors into our Association (for latest details click here members). The more CREIA inspectors in your area the better as the playing field will be leveled. More inspection’s are being done to our Standards of Practice and care. It is easier to compete with someone who is charging closer to the same price you are. This is one of the way’s we are planning to increase CREIA Members inspection market share in your area. More to come on this and other new member benefits in 2010. I am confident that we could not have come as far in the last 12 years without the able and sure guidance of Tyler Clydesdale our CEO. Tyler has been the backbone of CREIA. With a strong mixture of sadness and gratitude I have to announce that Tyler will be moving on to live his dream in the Smoky Mountains of Tennessee. He has been quietly developing a non-profit organization for blind and disabled animals. Please join me and our Board of Directors in thanking Tyler for his many years of devoted service, attention and competent care in guiding our organization. We wish the absolute best for you Tyler and that you may realize your dreams. Please visit their website at www.LoveHandlers.org for details and more information. In closing may we be mindful and appreciative of what we do have. Take the time and care to express our love of our Family and Friends. Take the opportunity to express gratitude to those we conduct business with. And let us not forget those less fortunate. Best and Warm Holiday Regards, Bill Parker, CREIA BOD Chairman
This Issue ... CREIA October 2009 BOD Meeting Synopsis (Members Only) CREIA Membership Drive November Update (Members Only) Old Friends and New Beginnings CREIA’s Contract and Standards of Practice – A Perspective Technical Article - Proper Dryer Venting & Maintenance The Key to Reduced Fire Risk Off the Net - Damage/Defects, Were They Reported on Prior to Your Inspection/Report? Home Safety, the Primary Duty of Home Inspectors Lessons in Risk Management: The Inaccessible Crawlspace Chinese Drywall Update - November 2, 2009
Old Friends and New Beginnings - A Final Word from Your CEO Hello CREIA Membership! At the recent October Board of Directors meetings it was announced that my last day, after almost thirteen years as CREIA’s CEO, would be December 17, 2009. I am most grateful for the opportunity to have been of service to CREIA and the California inspection profession, thank you for allowing this. I have watched the association and profession growth to new heights (there were only 330 members when I started at CREIA) and hopefully helped enhanced its member benefits, products and service over the years. Of course, this was not done alone and I am indebted to the many CREIA staffers with whom I have the pleasure of working over the years. CREIA will now be left in the best of care by terrifically talented Cella Flores at the headquarters. Please extend every kindness to her as she works through this transition. I am also deeply indebted to those who have supported CREIA through their services – folks such as Ellen Goodwin, Brian Hannigan, Paul Straznickas, Douglas Glass, Esq. and Kris Thompson, Esq. An extra special thanks to Greg Noyes for his friendship and kindness to me and to all the staff over these many years. I also wish to express my gratitude to the CREIA leaders - past and present - for their volunteerism and their support over the years. It has become fashionable to refer to the board as the “good old boys” at times, but please remember that “good” is the first word; many times I have observed these leaders giving back to the profession out of the goodness of their hearts for the good of the association. Every CREIA member and the state of California has benefitted from it.
Thank you all for your friendship over the years. All the best! Tyler Clydesdale Page 1 |
Congratulations! New Candidates Richard W Sarette New CCIs John L. Briere New Affiliates Ed Daher
|
||||||||
|
|
||||
|
November — December 2009 | Archives
|
||||
|
The Coalition of California Home Inspectors (CCHI) thanks the following Individuals and Chapters for their Contributions in 2009. CCHI also thanks the many attendees at CREIA educational events in 2009 who contributed through raffle donations.
CREIA’s Contract and Standards of Practice – A Perspective Bill Parker, our board president, has asked me to write about our Contract and Standards of Practice to help members gain a better perspective and understanding of these critical documents, how they developed, their purpose, and how they relate to your duties as a home inspector. It has been three years since our committee presented the current standards to the members at the CREIA conference in the summer of 2006. Many who missed that opportunity may still be looking for a better explanation for all the changes than they have gotten from their local chapters. This article and a couple that will follow should correct that and I want to start by taking a look at how the legal community has received the new Contract and SOP. To date, none of us on the Contract or Standards of Practice Committees have become aware of any legal challenges to any the provisions and all of the feedback that we have received from the legal community has been overwhelmingly positive. So, on that basis alone, I would say the effort has been a resounding success. Before the revisions were made we had feedback from the legal community that some of the provisions were putting our inspectors in direct jeopardy. We were told that we were putting a gun to our heads or at least shooting ourselves in the foot. We got feedback that it was easier to defend an inspector that used an ASHI contract and SOP, than our own. Well all that has changed and we never hear stories like that anymore. Every sentence, every word, every nuance was analyzed specifically from a legal perspective. In the state of California we have a unique legal environment and our Contract and SOP are directly tailored to reflect that reality. The most important provisions of California law are laid out in the Business and Professions Code Chapter 9.3, §7195 through §7199. Every one of us must be responsible for knowing and understanding these requirements. These provisions define what is required of a home inspector in California and are so important that how they impact and relate to our Contract and SOP will be the subject of a separate article in the next CREIA eNews. The process of revising the Standards of Practice was started by Jerry McCarthy, Duane McCutcheon, Al Virtue and myself. We were joined by George Harper, Steve Rush and Gary Sniffin with input from Bill Poulton, all the members of the state board, and many members throughout the state who took the time to get involved. Every word of the SOP and Contract was vigorously debated by very strong egos that managed to come to unanimous agreement after a grueling year long process that consumed a few of our lives. They were reviewed and approved by three lawyers –Kris Thompson, Dave Roberson and the legal team at Marian Allen – all of whom felt that decisive improvements were made from the previous edition. All comments from legal review were incorporated into the final version. As part of the overall process there was a point by point comparison between the ASHI SOP and contract and CREIA’s and the differences between the two where narrowed as much as possible in comparison to our previous SOP. California operates in a unique legal environment and this accounts for most of the remaining differences. The SOP and Contract went through membership review and over a hundred comments were received that resulted in many important changes. This resulted in the approval of the CREIA board with only one dissention that was over just one point – not including a standard tool list. Our intention from the beginning to end of the revision process was never to change the practices that most inspectors have been following. Our intensions were to streamline the SOP, make it as understandable as possible to the client, make it more concise, precise and dynamic, eliminate all internal conflicts, make it true to the Building and Professions Code, and make it legally defensible. One of the most profound improvements was to integrate the Standards of Practice directly with our contract and the importance of this one achievement cannot possibly be over estimated. Jerry McCarthy was the first to promote the idea that the SOP should be incorporated into the contract and be an integral part of it. The rest of us were initially skeptical but each of us eventually came around to understand the very real benefits of that concept and the lawyers all immediately supported the idea. What value is there if the SOP is not used and disseminated by us and understandable to the client? Just think how much more powerful it is to have the SOP as part of the contract rather than just being referred to in the contract. Now that our clients can be expected to read the SOP along with the contract they can no longer claim ignorance of the limitations. The importance of this change alone cannot be overstated. Every inspector should be strongly advised to provide the Contract and SOP as a package to their clients before the inspection or at the very least, at the beginning of the inspection. Every inspector should also be advised to print the contract and SOP at the beginning of each report and to make them an integral part of every report they print or send out in electronic format. This is the best way to make sure the inspector is not losing the protections provided by the contract/SOP. In fact we should probably all start referring to it as Contract/SOP so that everyone understands how integrated they truly need to be. Some people would like our standards to be more like a guide that an inspector can use, kind of like a field guide. The problem with this is that it has no logical conclusion and every effort in this direction just makes the SOP longer and longer. The SOP needs to be directed towards our clients not the inspector. It needs to be short and concise enough that we can reasonable expect our clients to both read it and understand it. It seems self-evident that if our clients can’t understand it and don’t read it, than it will not be as strong of a legal document. And this brings me back to the most critical point of all. Both our contract and SOP are, above all else, legal documents and every word was chosen with that in mind. It must be fair to our clients in setting out a reasonable scope of work and responsibility for the inspector. And it must be fair to the inspector in setting out reasonable limitations to what could otherwise be a very open-ended liability. We had to make a choice between a user friendly guide for inspectors and a concise document our clients can read and understand as well as a document that would hold up in court. We shortened the document to make it more usable and I hope everyone understands why we made this choice. We have gotten comments from some inspectors that they felt the standards were ‘weakened’ as they were condensed. The best way to address this issue is to use an example. The new standard simply states that you are required to inspect “water heaters”. The old standard included a lot more words: “Water heating equipment, including combustion air, venting, connections, energy sources, seismic bracing, and temperature-pressure relief valves”. Two words vs. 17. Did we change the standard? Our answer is an emphatic no. You must inspect all of those “components” to inspect the water heater “system”. There is just no need to list them all. None of those components were added to the excluded section. Any inspector who feels there requirement for inspecting a water heater changed needs to be set straight because I assure you that they would lose in a court of law or public opinion. Here is the reasoning for our decision to use two words rather than 17. This inclination to expand from simply listing the system to listing a longer list of components can be played out over and over again. I could show you in the old SOP a dozen places where it would make just as much sense to expand from two words to 17 so that we could list all the important components of other systems just like we were for water heaters. The old SOP lacked internal constancy in this way and we strove to analyze and minimize these inconsistencies as much as possible. Of course expanding each item this way would have expanded the entire SOP greatly rather than shrinking it. In fact, when taken to its logical conclusion, the SOP would have expanded exponentially. This example, as many possible others, should show that there is no change in the scope of an inspection for these items at all. There are some items that were previously excluded or considered options that are now included in our SOP. These are specifically: the major built-in kitchen appliances (stove, range hood, oven, dishwasher and garbage disposal) and garage doors and garage door openers. In addition, lot drainage issues are no longer limited to five feet and you should be looking at this issue more carefully than in the past. These expanded our scope of responsibility in ways we felt were in the best interests of our clients and reflected what most of our inspectors were already doing. I have one last subject to talk about in this article. Any standard of practice, by its nature, is the minimum that is required and should be considered a floor below which you can never go. You need to rise above this level and the more you do, the lower your potential problems. For instance our standards allow us to inspect a representative number of doors and windows. However, most inspectors inspect every window and door that is accessible and I feel that every one of you needs to do the same. The reason the SOP allows a representative sample is because we know that not every door or window will be accessible and this gives you some freedom from an absolute standard that would require you to inspect each one. I do not think you should abuse this escape clause and feel that each of us needs to make a reasonable effort to inspect each and every door and window. Each is unique and each has a unique potential for defects. In my next article we will look at this subject from a different perspective in relation to the critical safety issues. I am absolutely convinced that the better job that you do for your clients the less of a chance you will have a lawsuit. We know lots of inspectors that have gone a decade or more without ever being sued. We have others that seem to be dealing with a suit almost continually. I know that even the most conscientious can be sued by an unreasonable client, but on balance, the evidence is clear – rise to a higher standard and your liability will drop dramatically. To reiterate the main points of this article: The legal community and CREIA leadership has resoundingly endorsed the current CREIA Contract/SOP. CREIA is the only association with a Contract/SOP that is specifically written for California’s unique legal environment and is compatible with the California Building and Professions Code. Condensing and integrating the Standards of Practice into the Contract has made it more widely used, more understandable to the client, and more legally defensible. It is a mistake to ever send out a report that doesn’t have the Contract/SOP attached. The newer standards do not change the practices for most inspectors and the scope of our responsibility was actually increased, not diminished. The Standards of Practice should not be considered a field guide because that ideal had to be abandoned to realize all the other objectives. And last, any standards by their nature need to be considered minimum standards and you should strive to provide a higher personal standard for your clients – it will lower your liability and you will sleep better at night. This article is the first of several dedicated to a better understanding of our Contract and Standards of Practice. The next issue will have an article about the Business and Professions Code and its impact on home inspectors with a critical look at safety issues – both your safety and the clients. If you would like to participate in this discussion or would like to have any of your personal questions or concerns addressed, please email me directly. Submitted bySteve Johns, CREIA MCI, CNCS, All Pro Home Inspections.
Page 2 |
Congratulations! New Candidates Richard W Sarette New CCIs John L. Briere New Affiliates Ed Daher
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
November — December 2009 | Archives
|
||||
|
The Coalition of California Home Inspectors (CCHI) thanks the following Individuals and Chapters for their Contributions in 2009. CCHI also thanks the many attendees at CREIA educational events in 2009 who contributed through raffle donations.
CREIA’s Contract and Standards of Practice – A Perspective Bill Parker, our board president, has asked me to write about our Contract and Standards of Practice to help members gain a better perspective and understanding of these critical documents, how they developed, their purpose, and how they relate to your duties as a home inspector. It has been three years since our committee presented the current standards to the members at the CREIA conference in the summer of 2006. Many who missed that opportunity may still be looking for a better explanation for all the changes than they have gotten from their local chapters. This article and a couple that will follow should correct that and I want to start by taking a look at how the legal community has received the new Contract and SOP. To date, none of us on the Contract or Standards of Practice Committees have become aware of any legal challenges to any the provisions and all of the feedback that we have received from the legal community has been overwhelmingly positive. So, on that basis alone, I would say the effort has been a resounding success. Before the revisions were made we had feedback from the legal community that some of the provisions were putting our inspectors in direct jeopardy. We were told that we were putting a gun to our heads or at least shooting ourselves in the foot. We got feedback that it was easier to defend an inspector that used an ASHI contract and SOP, than our own. Well all that has changed and we never hear stories like that anymore. Every sentence, every word, every nuance was analyzed specifically from a legal perspective. In the state of California we have a unique legal environment and our Contract and SOP are directly tailored to reflect that reality. The most important provisions of California law are laid out in the Business and Professions Code Chapter 9.3, §7195 through §7199. Every one of us must be responsible for knowing and understanding these requirements. These provisions define what is required of a home inspector in California and are so important that how they impact and relate to our Contract and SOP will be the subject of a separate article in the next CREIA eNews. The process of revising the Standards of Practice was started by Jerry McCarthy, Duane McCutcheon, Al Virtue and myself. We were joined by George Harper, Steve Rush and Gary Sniffin with input from Bill Poulton, all the members of the state board, and many members throughout the state who took the time to get involved. Every word of the SOP and Contract was vigorously debated by very strong egos that managed to come to unanimous agreement after a grueling year long process that consumed a few of our lives. They were reviewed and approved by three lawyers –Kris Thompson, Dave Roberson and the legal team at Marian Allen – all of whom felt that decisive improvements were made from the previous edition. All comments from legal review were incorporated into the final version. As part of the overall process there was a point by point comparison between the ASHI SOP and contract and CREIA’s and the differences between the two where narrowed as much as possible in comparison to our previous SOP. California operates in a unique legal environment and this accounts for most of the remaining differences. The SOP and Contract went through membership review and over a hundred comments were received that resulted in many important changes. This resulted in the approval of the CREIA board with only one dissention that was over just one point – not including a standard tool list. Our intention from the beginning to end of the revision process was never to change the practices that most inspectors have been following. Our intensions were to streamline the SOP, make it as understandable as possible to the client, make it more concise, precise and dynamic, eliminate all internal conflicts, make it true to the Building and Professions Code, and make it legally defensible. One of the most profound improvements was to integrate the Standards of Practice directly with our contract and the importance of this one achievement cannot possibly be over estimated. Jerry McCarthy was the first to promote the idea that the SOP should be incorporated into the contract and be an integral part of it. The rest of us were initially skeptical but each of us eventually came around to understand the very real benefits of that concept and the lawyers all immediately supported the idea. What value is there if the SOP is not used and disseminated by us and understandable to the client? Just think how much more powerful it is to have the SOP as part of the contract rather than just being referred to in the contract. Now that our clients can be expected to read the SOP along with the contract they can no longer claim ignorance of the limitations. The importance of this change alone cannot be overstated. Every inspector should be strongly advised to provide the Contract and SOP as a package to their clients before the inspection or at the very least, at the beginning of the inspection. Every inspector should also be advised to print the contract and SOP at the beginning of each report and to make them an integral part of every report they print or send out in electronic format. This is the best way to make sure the inspector is not losing the protections provided by the contract/SOP. In fact we should probably all start referring to it as Contract/SOP so that everyone understands how integrated they truly need to be. Some people would like our standards to be more like a guide that an inspector can use, kind of like a field guide. The problem with this is that it has no logical conclusion and every effort in this direction just makes the SOP longer and longer. The SOP needs to be directed towards our clients not the inspector. It needs to be short and concise enough that we can reasonable expect our clients to both read it and understand it. It seems self-evident that if our clients can’t understand it and don’t read it, than it will not be as strong of a legal document. And this brings me back to the most critical point of all. Both our contract and SOP are, above all else, legal documents and every word was chosen with that in mind. It must be fair to our clients in setting out a reasonable scope of work and responsibility for the inspector. And it must be fair to the inspector in setting out reasonable limitations to what could otherwise be a very open-ended liability. We had to make a choice between a user friendly guide for inspectors and a concise document our clients can read and understand as well as a document that would hold up in court. We shortened the document to make it more usable and I hope everyone understands why we made this choice. We have gotten comments from some inspectors that they felt the standards were ‘weakened’ as they were condensed. The best way to address this issue is to use an example. The new standard simply states that you are required to inspect “water heaters”. The old standard included a lot more words: “Water heating equipment, including combustion air, venting, connections, energy sources, seismic bracing, and temperature-pressure relief valves”. Two words vs. 17. Did we change the standard? Our answer is an emphatic no. You must inspect all of those “components” to inspect the water heater “system”. There is just no need to list them all. None of those components were added to the excluded section. Any inspector who feels there requirement for inspecting a water heater changed needs to be set straight because I assure you that they would lose in a court of law or public opinion. Here is the reasoning for our decision to use two words rather than 17. This inclination to expand from simply listing the system to listing a longer list of components can be played out over and over again. I could show you in the old SOP a dozen places where it would make just as much sense to expand from two words to 17 so that we could list all the important components of other systems just like we were for water heaters. The old SOP lacked internal constancy in this way and we strove to analyze and minimize these inconsistencies as much as possible. Of course expanding each item this way would have expanded the entire SOP greatly rather than shrinking it. In fact, when taken to its logical conclusion, the SOP would have expanded exponentially. This example, as many possible others, should show that there is no change in the scope of an inspection for these items at all. There are some items that were previously excluded or considered options that are now included in our SOP. These are specifically: the major built-in kitchen appliances (stove, range hood, oven, dishwasher and garbage disposal) and garage doors and garage door openers. In addition, lot drainage issues are no longer limited to five feet and you should be looking at this issue more carefully than in the past. These expanded our scope of responsibility in ways we felt were in the best interests of our clients and reflected what most of our inspectors were already doing. I have one last subject to talk about in this article. Any standard of practice, by its nature, is the minimum that is required and should be considered a floor below which you can never go. You need to rise above this level and the more you do, the lower your potential problems. For instance our standards allow us to inspect a representative number of doors and windows. However, most inspectors inspect every window and door that is accessible and I feel that every one of you needs to do the same. The reason the SOP allows a representative sample is because we know that not every door or window will be accessible and this gives you some freedom from an absolute standard that would require you to inspect each one. I do not think you should abuse this escape clause and feel that each of us needs to make a reasonable effort to inspect each and every door and window. Each is unique and each has a unique potential for defects. In my next article we will look at this subject from a different perspective in relation to the critical safety issues. I am absolutely convinced that the better job that you do for your clients the less of a chance you will have a lawsuit. We know lots of inspectors that have gone a decade or more without ever being sued. We have others that seem to be dealing with a suit almost continually. I know that even the most conscientious can be sued by an unreasonable client, but on balance, the evidence is clear – rise to a higher standard and your liability will drop dramatically. To reiterate the main points of this article: The legal community and CREIA leadership has resoundingly endorsed the current CREIA Contract/SOP. CREIA is the only association with a Contract/SOP that is specifically written for California’s unique legal environment and is compatible with the California Building and Professions Code. Condensing and integrating the Standards of Practice into the Contract has made it more widely used, more understandable to the client, and more legally defensible. It is a mistake to ever send out a report that doesn’t have the Contract/SOP attached. The newer standards do not change the practices for most inspectors and the scope of our responsibility was actually increased, not diminished. The Standards of Practice should not be considered a field guide because that ideal had to be abandoned to realize all the other objectives. And last, any standards by their nature need to be considered minimum standards and you should strive to provide a higher personal standard for your clients – it will lower your liability and you will sleep better at night. This article is the first of several dedicated to a better understanding of our Contract and Standards of Practice. The next issue will have an article about the Business and Professions Code and its impact on home inspectors with a critical look at safety issues – both your safety and the clients. If you would like to participate in this discussion or would like to have any of your personal questions or concerns addressed, please email me directly. Submitted bySteve Johns, CREIA MCI, CNCS, All Pro Home Inspections.
Page 2 |
Congratulations! New Candidates Richard W Sarette New CCIs John L. Briere New Affiliates Ed Daher
|
|||
|
|
||||||
|
November — December 2009 | Archives
|
||||||
|
Technical Article Almost every one of us that inspects properties for a living has some pet peeves; i.e. those things that we pay special attention to - perhaps because of some special knowledge or experience. One of mine is clothes dryer venting. Dryer venting isn’t a very glamorous topic, but if we look at residential clothes dryer related fires as a percentage of the total number of fires per year – it is a very significant safety concern. There are over 15,500 residential dryer related fires per year. Dryer related fires rank as a Top Ten cause of residential fires and are responsible for nearly $100,000,000 per year in property losses. They are responsible for around 400 injuries per year with an average of 15 fatalities. Around 83% of all clothes dryer related fires occur in 1 and 2 unit single-family dwellings.
In older dwellings, the laundry is often located in the garage separated from the living areas and away from the bedrooms. In modern construction, there is a tendency to locate laundry facilities inside the living areas and often on the same floor as the sleeping areas. This increases the risk of fatalities should a dryer be left running in the evening when the occupants are sleeping. Dryer related fires do not just occur in gas dryers, electric dryers contribute as well. Many may believe that keeping the lint trap clean is the key to the safe operation of the appliance. That is only partially true. Most dryer manufacturers recommend that the dryer side panels be removed periodically and that the interior and vent system be cleaned as part of the appliance maintenance. This is because lint does escape the vent system over time and collect around the interior components. I randomly selected an LG Brand gas dryer and looked at the maintenance requirements. LG recommends annual cleaning of the dryer interior and vent system. What do you suppose the odds of that actually happening are? Per the US Fire Administration/National Fire Incident Reporting System, the 2000-2004 statistics show that the leading cause of dryer related fires is “Failure to Clean.” Improper dryer and vent maintenance causes around 70% of dryer related fires. Lint build-up in the dryer and vent system has a number of effects. The lint itself is highly flammable. The accumulation of lint inside the dryer and vent system restricts exhaust airflow. The restricted airflow across the dryer heat exchanger will result in an increase in air and heat exchanger temperature. Clothes dyers are equipped with over temperature cutout switches – the same as furnaces. However, prolonged exposure to high temperatures may desensitize the switches or cause outright switch failure. In that case, the system continues to operate until it becomes hot enough to ignite the lint. The lint will burn like a fuse along the dryer vent duct. Ducts often run through wall cavities, through crawlspaces and through attics. Tests conducted by a Jupiter Florida based lab measured vent fire wall cavity temperatures of around 1000° F within 150 seconds of the lint ignition. The bottom line - these fires burn hot and they burn fast.
If you don’t already, I suggest that including some language recommending periodic maintenance of the dryer and vent system as part of your inspection reporting. For example I use this comment:
The CREIA Standards of Practice give us the following guidelines on what must be inspected: 7. Heating and Cooling
Since the clothes dryer vent is an exhaust vent system, it must be included in our inspections. The how we inspect and the extent of the comments are left to the individual inspector. I suggest considering a “Best Practices” approach to the inspection of all systems. In doing this, we would look at the problems a system causes and work back to the components or issues that caused the problem. Then break the inspection of the system down into its components and the conditions that cause the problems. Each component would then have its own series of installation requirements and defect conditions. The current California Mechanical Code (CMC 2007) requires the following for dryer installations: 504.3 Clothes Dryers. Moisture exhaust ducts shall terminate on the outside of the building and shall be equipped with a backdraft damper. Screens shall not be installed at the duct termination. Ducts for exhausting clothes dryers shall not be connected or installed with sheet metal screws or other fasteners that will obstruct the flow. Clothes dryer moisture exhaust ducts shall not be connected to a gas vent connector, gas vent; or chimney, and shall only serve clothes dryers. Clothes dryer moisture exhaust ducts shall not extend into or through ducts or plenums.
504.5 Termination of Environmental Air Ducts. Environmental air duct exhaust: three (3) feet from property line; three (3) feet from openings into the building. 701.1.4 Makeup air requirements for the operation of exhaust fans, kitchen ventilation systems, clothes dryers, and fireplaces shall be considered in determining the adequacy of a space to provide combustion-air requirements. [NFPA 54: 9.3.1.5]
Ilustration Courtesy of CREIA’s Friends at CodeCheck The CMC dryer venting requirements appear somewhat different from the IRC 2009. The current IRC allows dryer vents up to 25 feet. However, the IRC’s 25-foot maximum does not include any allowance for 90° Ell’s. If we adjust the IRC requirements for 2-90° Ell’s, they are actually fairly close – 14 feet versus 15 feet. Now, let’s talk about the inspection of the dryer venting by the looking at the vent system components and issues. Is a dryer vent required? There is no requirement that a clothes dryer be installed. However, if provisions to install a dryer exist, per the CMC, a dryer vent system must be installed. The only exception to this would be if a condensing/ventless dryer were installed. That would require a jurisdictional exception. Condensing dryers remove water from the dryer air by condensing the air on a chilled coil. Condensing dryers are expensive and will always be electric – never gas. Condensing dryers do require a means to drain condensate from the system. The condensate drain often uses the washer drain. Maximum Dryer Vent Length: The longer the vent run, the harder the dryer fan has to work, the slower the airflow is across the dryer heat exchanger, the more interior duct surface area to collect lint. Lint on the vent interior creates friction, further restricting airflow. Lower airflow across the heat exchanger means higher air temperatures. All this translates into more rigorous maintenance requirements and higher fire risk. In general, dryer vents that run vertically will require more maintenance than horizontal runs. It is harder to push wet lint straight up than it is to move it horizontally. The maximum vent length allowed under the CMC is 14 feet. This includes an allowance for 2-90° Ell’s. For each additional 90° Ell, we would deduct 2 feet from the maximum length allowed. The AHJ may allow longer runs. Exceptions should be based on engineered solutions and may include the requirement that the specific dryer installed be rated for longer runs by the manufacturer. In general, the shorter and the straighter the dryer vent – the better. In some installations, we may see signs posted at the laundry area that the dryer installed must be rated for some stated minimum dryer vent length. There are some new Ell’s specifically engineered for dryer venting. These have long sweeps and do not require a reduction in vent length when installed. Minimum Vent Diameter: The smaller the vent diameter, the harder the fan has to work to move air. Because the surface area is reduced, a given amount of lint creates a more significant impact on airflow. The minimum vent diameter allowed under the CMC is 4 inches. The dryer vent should be no less than 4 inches but never reduced to a size smaller than the appliance vent collar. Vent Material: Any vent run over 6 feet should be metal. As we saw in the YouTube video, the lint burns quickly and hot. It is critical that the vent material be metal. The CMC requires that all dryer vents be an approved material that has a smooth interior surface. This is generally single-wall vent material such as used for gas appliance vents. Transition Ducts: The transition duct should be no more than 6 feet long. Shorter is better. The “transition duct” term is new to the CMC 2007 and is used to describe the flexible appliance connector. The CMC now requires that the transition ducts be LISTED. Meaning they must be tested for use in a dryer venting system by an independent lab such as UL. The old white plastic and many of the thin-foil flexible ducts will no longer comply. The manufacturers installation instructions generally exclude those materials as well. After seeing the YouTube video, it is hopefully very clear why running the flexible ducts through a concealed space is not allowed. Per the CMC, the maximum length of the dryer transition duct is 6 feet. Any portion of the dryer vent over 6 feet or that passes through concealed spaces, etc. should be metal. Many states use the I-Codes (IMC/IRC), which have a maximum transition duct length of 8 feet. Consequently, the dryer transition ducts sold are almost always packaged in 8-foot long sections. These should be shortened to a maximum of 6 feet when they are installed. In practice, this seldom seems to occur. The transition duct should be as short as possible while still allowing the appliance to be moved for cleaning and service. Any unnecessary material, bends, kinks, etc should be removed as they can significantly restrict airflow. Transition ducts should not be joined together to make longer sections and should not pass through concealed spaces, bulkheads, walls, etc. Dryer Vent Termination: The dryer vent should terminate at the exterior using an appropriate back-draft damper. The vent should terminate at least 3 feet from any building opening, air intake or the property line. The dryer should terminate well away from AC condensing coils to avoid lint build-up in the coil. Dryer vent terminations should not be screened. The air discharging from the dryer vent is warm. On a cold evening, an improperly terminated dryer opening can make an inviting resting spot for all sorts of critters. When critters take up residence, they can build nests that obstruct airflow that again can result in overheating of the dryer. General Dryer Vent Installation: The dryer vent and transition duct should be free from mechanical damage. Any areas that are impinged, kinked, mechanically damaged will obstruct airflow and collect lint. Mechanical connections should be made using tape or approved fastening methods. We never want to see screws or fasteners that project into the dryer exhaust flow since they will collect lint. The male ends of the vent should be installed “pointing” in the direction of airflow. The dryer vent should not pass through a plenum or ductwork. It is not uncommon in older dwellings to find the dryer vent routed through the wood enclosure under the garage furnace. That enclosure often serves as the return air plenum. In that installation, the air pressure inside the plenum is negative when the furnace is operating. When the dryer is operating the pressure inside the duct is positive. The dryer vent in a gas dryer also serves to vent combustion by products to the exterior. Routing the dryer duct through the return creates a situation where the dryer by products can be sucked into the air circulating in the living areas. If a fire starts in the dryer duct, both the smoke and fire will be drawn directly into the living space. Other Clothes Dryer Vent Considerations: A standard 12 lbs load of laundry comes out of a newer clothes washer weighing around 20 lbs, even more in older washers. That is at least 8 lbs or roughly 1 gallon of water that must be removed from the clothes to dry them. That means that a gallon or more of water is being exhausted from the dryer during a typical cycle. Any improperly sealed dryer ducts introduce a significant amount of moisture into the surrounding area. That much moisture can cause a host of issues - not only damage to wood members but environmental issues as well. A typical residential clothes dryer exhausts approximately 200 CFM of air to the exterior. If the dryer is installed in a confined space, such as a closet, there should be a provision to provide make-up air to the area. In confined areas, the CMC requires a minimum make-up air opening of 100 square inches. The make-up air can be taken from the living space or under certain circumstances from the exterior. Just as a gas water heater or furnace, a gas clothes dryer also has combustion air requirements. Both gas and electric dryers exhaust air to the exterior as part of their normal operation. When a clothes dryer is running, it competes with other appliances for interior air. This is especially true in confined spaces with gas burning appliances and a dryer installed. How many times do we see a furnace and water heater installed in an interior laundry area where there is an exhaust fan and little to no combustion air? Turn them all on, close the interior laundry door and just imagine what happens next. At least in my business area, very few local jurisdictions seem to understand or choose to enforce the requirement for make-up air in confined laundry areas. The clothes dryer discharge should not be vented with any other exhaust systems, i.e. kitchen, bath or tied into such things as plumbing vents or gas appliance vents. It is important that the dryer terminate at the exterior. This can be difficult to verify sometimes, especially in large homes and condos. While testing laundry equipment is not required, turning on the dryer can be helpful to help verify that the dryer vent actually terminates at the exterior. With the dryer running, walk the exterior and look for the termination with airflow. The CMC does not specifically deal with the installation of dryer booster fans. Booster fans are engineered specifically to extend the maximum dryer vent length. The 2003 IRC had a general provision for dryer booster fans. This was removed in the 2006 IRC. The provision was deleted because a dryer booster fan must be matched to the specific dryer model installed and not to the dwelling. In general, the booster fan CFM output must be matched to the CFM output of the dryer installed. The booster fan installation instructions will usually require the fan to be installed at least 10 to 15 feet from the clothes dryer. Installing the booster fan as close as possible to the termination is usually preferred. This allows the air and lint in the exhaust airflow a chance to dry somewhat. Installation of the fan too close to the dryer may result in clogging of the fan blades with wet lint. The booster fan manufacturer may allow lesser distances if a secondary lint trap is installed between the dryer and the booster fan. The fan pressure switch orientation is important as well. In general, the switch should be located in the upper portion of the duct. See the illustration from Fantech.
Fantech Dryer Booster Fan and Pressure Switch Orientation New or old, dryer vent systems are almost always problematic. In older construction, we often see homeowner installations that are often improperly installed. In my business areas, there is a new high-end condo complex where the units have gas dryer hook-ups but most – not all – of the units have no provision to vent a dryer. There is another newer complex with the gas dryer and gas water heater located in a confined area with no provision for combustion or make-up air. Recently, a local building official caught a dryer venting issue in a new apartment complex that was under construction. The clothes dryers, kitchen and bath exhaust systems were all vented using the same duct system. This installation was designed by a mechanical engineer, had passed plan check and was being installed by a well-respected mechanical contractor. Fortunately, the building inspector prevailed even though the developer brought significant pressure on the city to allow the installation. Finally, one last example of how a seemingly small mistake can cause a huge problem. This involves litigation on a newer condo project. A mechanical engineer designed the dryer vent system, which again passed plan check. A well-respected mechanical contractor installed the system per the approved plans. The complex was signed off by the city. The engineer designed custom dryer terminations with screens. In the plans, they were actually referred to as “Lint Traps” and lint traps they were. All the clothes dryers vented vertically to the roof. The problem was discovered shortly after property was fully occupied. The dryer vents were all clogged, many had blown apart and were venting into the attic. Just imagine how much moisture was pumped into the attic area from the dryers. The entire roof framing assembly was moisture damaged. The excessive moisture caused mold issues that required remediation. Of course, the occupants had to be relocated during repairs. The final cost to deal with the mess was around $10,000,000. All over dryer vent terminations that were screened and wet dryer lint. The next time someone tells you “Its just a dryer vent.” Remember, there are 15,500 dryer related fires per year and 83% of those are in single-family homes. Sometimes little things have serious consequences. Submitted by: Skip Walker
Page 3 |
Congratulations! New Candidates Richard W Sarette New CCIs John L. Briere New Affiliates Ed Daher
|
|||||
|
|
||||||
|
November — December 2009 | Archives
|
||||||
|
Technical Article Almost every one of us that inspects properties for a living has some pet peeves; i.e. those things that we pay special attention to - perhaps because of some special knowledge or experience. One of mine is clothes dryer venting. Dryer venting isn’t a very glamorous topic, but if we look at residential clothes dryer related fires as a percentage of the total number of fires per year – it is a very significant safety concern. There are over 15,500 residential dryer related fires per year. Dryer related fires rank as a Top Ten cause of residential fires and are responsible for nearly $100,000,000 per year in property losses. They are responsible for around 400 injuries per year with an average of 15 fatalities. Around 83% of all clothes dryer related fires occur in 1 and 2 unit single-family dwellings.
In older dwellings, the laundry is often located in the garage separated from the living areas and away from the bedrooms. In modern construction, there is a tendency to locate laundry facilities inside the living areas and often on the same floor as the sleeping areas. This increases the risk of fatalities should a dryer be left running in the evening when the occupants are sleeping. Dryer related fires do not just occur in gas dryers, electric dryers contribute as well. Many may believe that keeping the lint trap clean is the key to the safe operation of the appliance. That is only partially true. Most dryer manufacturers recommend that the dryer side panels be removed periodically and that the interior and vent system be cleaned as part of the appliance maintenance. This is because lint does escape the vent system over time and collect around the interior components. I randomly selected an LG Brand gas dryer and looked at the maintenance requirements. LG recommends annual cleaning of the dryer interior and vent system. What do you suppose the odds of that actually happening are? Per the US Fire Administration/National Fire Incident Reporting System, the 2000-2004 statistics show that the leading cause of dryer related fires is “Failure to Clean.” Improper dryer and vent maintenance causes around 70% of dryer related fires. Lint build-up in the dryer and vent system has a number of effects. The lint itself is highly flammable. The accumulation of lint inside the dryer and vent system restricts exhaust airflow. The restricted airflow across the dryer heat exchanger will result in an increase in air and heat exchanger temperature. Clothes dyers are equipped with over temperature cutout switches – the same as furnaces. However, prolonged exposure to high temperatures may desensitize the switches or cause outright switch failure. In that case, the system continues to operate until it becomes hot enough to ignite the lint. The lint will burn like a fuse along the dryer vent duct. Ducts often run through wall cavities, through crawlspaces and through attics. Tests conducted by a Jupiter Florida based lab measured vent fire wall cavity temperatures of around 1000° F within 150 seconds of the lint ignition. The bottom line - these fires burn hot and they burn fast.
If you don’t already, I suggest that including some language recommending periodic maintenance of the dryer and vent system as part of your inspection reporting. For example I use this comment:
The CREIA Standards of Practice give us the following guidelines on what must be inspected: 7. Heating and Cooling
Since the clothes dryer vent is an exhaust vent system, it must be included in our inspections. The how we inspect and the extent of the comments are left to the individual inspector. I suggest considering a “Best Practices” approach to the inspection of all systems. In doing this, we would look at the problems a system causes and work back to the components or issues that caused the problem. Then break the inspection of the system down into its components and the conditions that cause the problems. Each component would then have its own series of installation requirements and defect conditions. The current California Mechanical Code (CMC 2007) requires the following for dryer installations: 504.3 Clothes Dryers. Moisture exhaust ducts shall terminate on the outside of the building and shall be equipped with a backdraft damper. Screens shall not be installed at the duct termination. Ducts for exhausting clothes dryers shall not be connected or installed with sheet metal screws or other fasteners that will obstruct the flow. Clothes dryer moisture exhaust ducts shall not be connected to a gas vent connector, gas vent; or chimney, and shall only serve clothes dryers. Clothes dryer moisture exhaust ducts shall not extend into or through ducts or plenums.
504.5 Termination of Environmental Air Ducts. Environmental air duct exhaust: three (3) feet from property line; three (3) feet from openings into the building. 701.1.4 Makeup air requirements for the operation of exhaust fans, kitchen ventilation systems, clothes dryers, and fireplaces shall be considered in determining the adequacy of a space to provide combustion-air requirements. [NFPA 54: 9.3.1.5]
Ilustration Courtesy of CREIA’s Friends at CodeCheck The CMC dryer venting requirements appear somewhat different from the IRC 2009. The current IRC allows dryer vents up to 25 feet. However, the IRC’s 25-foot maximum does not include any allowance for 90° Ell’s. If we adjust the IRC requirements for 2-90° Ell’s, they are actually fairly close – 14 feet versus 15 feet. Now, let’s talk about the inspection of the dryer venting by the looking at the vent system components and issues. Is a dryer vent required? There is no requirement that a clothes dryer be installed. However, if provisions to install a dryer exist, per the CMC, a dryer vent system must be installed. The only exception to this would be if a condensing/ventless dryer were installed. That would require a jurisdictional exception. Condensing dryers remove water from the dryer air by condensing the air on a chilled coil. Condensing dryers are expensive and will always be electric – never gas. Condensing dryers do require a means to drain condensate from the system. The condensate drain often uses the washer drain. Maximum Dryer Vent Length: The longer the vent run, the harder the dryer fan has to work, the slower the airflow is across the dryer heat exchanger, the more interior duct surface area to collect lint. Lint on the vent interior creates friction, further restricting airflow. Lower airflow across the heat exchanger means higher air temperatures. All this translates into more rigorous maintenance requirements and higher fire risk. In general, dryer vents that run vertically will require more maintenance than horizontal runs. It is harder to push wet lint straight up than it is to move it horizontally. The maximum vent length allowed under the CMC is 14 feet. This includes an allowance for 2-90° Ell’s. For each additional 90° Ell, we would deduct 2 feet from the maximum length allowed. The AHJ may allow longer runs. Exceptions should be based on engineered solutions and may include the requirement that the specific dryer installed be rated for longer runs by the manufacturer. In general, the shorter and the straighter the dryer vent – the better. In some installations, we may see signs posted at the laundry area that the dryer installed must be rated for some stated minimum dryer vent length. There are some new Ell’s specifically engineered for dryer venting. These have long sweeps and do not require a reduction in vent length when installed. Minimum Vent Diameter: The smaller the vent diameter, the harder the fan has to work to move air. Because the surface area is reduced, a given amount of lint creates a more significant impact on airflow. The minimum vent diameter allowed under the CMC is 4 inches. The dryer vent should be no less than 4 inches but never reduced to a size smaller than the appliance vent collar. Vent Material: Any vent run over 6 feet should be metal. As we saw in the YouTube video, the lint burns quickly and hot. It is critical that the vent material be metal. The CMC requires that all dryer vents be an approved material that has a smooth interior surface. This is generally single-wall vent material such as used for gas appliance vents. Transition Ducts: The transition duct should be no more than 6 feet long. Shorter is better. The “transition duct” term is new to the CMC 2007 and is used to describe the flexible appliance connector. The CMC now requires that the transition ducts be LISTED. Meaning they must be tested for use in a dryer venting system by an independent lab such as UL. The old white plastic and many of the thin-foil flexible ducts will no longer comply. The manufacturers installation instructions generally exclude those materials as well. After seeing the YouTube video, it is hopefully very clear why running the flexible ducts through a concealed space is not allowed. Per the CMC, the maximum length of the dryer transition duct is 6 feet. Any portion of the dryer vent over 6 feet or that passes through concealed spaces, etc. should be metal. Many states use the I-Codes (IMC/IRC), which have a maximum transition duct length of 8 feet. Consequently, the dryer transition ducts sold are almost always packaged in 8-foot long sections. These should be shortened to a maximum of 6 feet when they are installed. In practice, this seldom seems to occur. The transition duct should be as short as possible while still allowing the appliance to be moved for cleaning and service. Any unnecessary material, bends, kinks, etc should be removed as they can significantly restrict airflow. Transition ducts should not be joined together to make longer sections and should not pass through concealed spaces, bulkheads, walls, etc. Dryer Vent Termination: The dryer vent should terminate at the exterior using an appropriate back-draft damper. The vent should terminate at least 3 feet from any building opening, air intake or the property line. The dryer should terminate well away from AC condensing coils to avoid lint build-up in the coil. Dryer vent terminations should not be screened. The air discharging from the dryer vent is warm. On a cold evening, an improperly terminated dryer opening can make an inviting resting spot for all sorts of critters. When critters take up residence, they can build nests that obstruct airflow that again can result in overheating of the dryer. General Dryer Vent Installation: The dryer vent and transition duct should be free from mechanical damage. Any areas that are impinged, kinked, mechanically damaged will obstruct airflow and collect lint. Mechanical connections should be made using tape or approved fastening methods. We never want to see screws or fasteners that project into the dryer exhaust flow since they will collect lint. The male ends of the vent should be installed “pointing” in the direction of airflow. The dryer vent should not pass through a plenum or ductwork. It is not uncommon in older dwellings to find the dryer vent routed through the wood enclosure under the garage furnace. That enclosure often serves as the return air plenum. In that installation, the air pressure inside the plenum is negative when the furnace is operating. When the dryer is operating the pressure inside the duct is positive. The dryer vent in a gas dryer also serves to vent combustion by products to the exterior. Routing the dryer duct through the return creates a situation where the dryer by products can be sucked into the air circulating in the living areas. If a fire starts in the dryer duct, both the smoke and fire will be drawn directly into the living space. Other Clothes Dryer Vent Considerations: A standard 12 lbs load of laundry comes out of a newer clothes washer weighing around 20 lbs, even more in older washers. That is at least 8 lbs or roughly 1 gallon of water that must be removed from the clothes to dry them. That means that a gallon or more of water is being exhausted from the dryer during a typical cycle. Any improperly sealed dryer ducts introduce a significant amount of moisture into the surrounding area. That much moisture can cause a host of issues - not only damage to wood members but environmental issues as well. A typical residential clothes dryer exhausts approximately 200 CFM of air to the exterior. If the dryer is installed in a confined space, such as a closet, there should be a provision to provide make-up air to the area. In confined areas, the CMC requires a minimum make-up air opening of 100 square inches. The make-up air can be taken from the living space or under certain circumstances from the exterior. Just as a gas water heater or furnace, a gas clothes dryer also has combustion air requirements. Both gas and electric dryers exhaust air to the exterior as part of their normal operation. When a clothes dryer is running, it competes with other appliances for interior air. This is especially true in confined spaces with gas burning appliances and a dryer installed. How many times do we see a furnace and water heater installed in an interior laundry area where there is an exhaust fan and little to no combustion air? Turn them all on, close the interior laundry door and just imagine what happens next. At least in my business area, very few local jurisdictions seem to understand or choose to enforce the requirement for make-up air in confined laundry areas. The clothes dryer discharge should not be vented with any other exhaust systems, i.e. kitchen, bath or tied into such things as plumbing vents or gas appliance vents. It is important that the dryer terminate at the exterior. This can be difficult to verify sometimes, especially in large homes and condos. While testing laundry equipment is not required, turning on the dryer can be helpful to help verify that the dryer vent actually terminates at the exterior. With the dryer running, walk the exterior and look for the termination with airflow. The CMC does not specifically deal with the installation of dryer booster fans. Booster fans are engineered specifically to extend the maximum dryer vent length. The 2003 IRC had a general provision for dryer booster fans. This was removed in the 2006 IRC. The provision was deleted because a dryer booster fan must be matched to the specific dryer model installed and not to the dwelling. In general, the booster fan CFM output must be matched to the CFM output of the dryer installed. The booster fan installation instructions will usually require the fan to be installed at least 10 to 15 feet from the clothes dryer. Installing the booster fan as close as possible to the termination is usually preferred. This allows the air and lint in the exhaust airflow a chance to dry somewhat. Installation of the fan too close to the dryer may result in clogging of the fan blades with wet lint. The booster fan manufacturer may allow lesser distances if a secondary lint trap is installed between the dryer and the booster fan. The fan pressure switch orientation is important as well. In general, the switch should be located in the upper portion of the duct. See the illustration from Fantech.
Fantech Dryer Booster Fan and Pressure Switch Orientation New or old, dryer vent systems are almost always problematic. In older construction, we often see homeowner installations that are often improperly installed. In my business areas, there is a new high-end condo complex where the units have gas dryer hook-ups but most – not all – of the units have no provision to vent a dryer. There is another newer complex with the gas dryer and gas water heater located in a confined area with no provision for combustion or make-up air. Recently, a local building official caught a dryer venting issue in a new apartment complex that was under construction. The clothes dryers, kitchen and bath exhaust systems were all vented using the same duct system. This installation was designed by a mechanical engineer, had passed plan check and was being installed by a well-respected mechanical contractor. Fortunately, the building inspector prevailed even though the developer brought significant pressure on the city to allow the installation. Finally, one last example of how a seemingly small mistake can cause a huge problem. This involves litigation on a newer condo project. A mechanical engineer designed the dryer vent system, which again passed plan check. A well-respected mechanical contractor installed the system per the approved plans. The complex was signed off by the city. The engineer designed custom dryer terminations with screens. In the plans, they were actually referred to as “Lint Traps” and lint traps they were. All the clothes dryers vented vertically to the roof. The problem was discovered shortly after property was fully occupied. The dryer vents were all clogged, many had blown apart and were venting into the attic. Just imagine how much moisture was pumped into the attic area from the dryers. The entire roof framing assembly was moisture damaged. The excessive moisture caused mold issues that required remediation. Of course, the occupants had to be relocated during repairs. The final cost to deal with the mess was around $10,000,000. All over dryer vent terminations that were screened and wet dryer lint. The next time someone tells you “Its just a dryer vent.” Remember, there are 15,500 dryer related fires per year and 83% of those are in single-family homes. Sometimes little things have serious consequences. Submitted by: Skip Walker
Page 3 |
Congratulations! New Candidates Richard W Sarette New CCIs John L. Briere New Affiliates Ed Daher
|
|||||
|
||
|
November — December 2009 | Archives
|
||
|
This series of columns is designed to familiarize CREIA members with “The Glossary Project” which is “Standardized Terminology for the Professional Real Estate Inspector”. This is a must have for all inspectors and is especially helpful in preparing the candidate for the CREIA CCI test as most of the terms in the test are defined in The Glossary Project. It is available from shop.CREIA.org.
Click here for the answers (Sorry members only)
The following is a link to a Members Only discussion from the T.I.E. on how various inspectors would handle reporting damage/defects that were visible to them and may or may not have been visible and/or reported by the prior inspector(s). Home Safety, the Primary Duty of Home Inspectors Tragic news was reported today in California, of two year old twin girls drowning in their families pool. This shocking news is a reminder to home inspectors that the primary duty to our clients is home safety. Drowning is primarily of young children and accounts for 800 in home deaths in the U.S. each year. When conducting a home inspection, often times my clients opt out of a pool inspection as part of their inspection, to save money. When they make this decision, I always still review with them the importance of effective safety barriers for pools, spas and fountains, for their children and guest children. A proper barrier system of fencing and self-closing gates would defeat any young child’s attempts to access to access a water area. Knowing the professional standards of my home inspection CREIA and ASHI peers, I am certain that they review these water safety issues with their clients as well. This tragedy, while it will help draw essential attention to the danger of child drowning, does not educate the public as to the primary cause of death in U.S. homes. In fact, drowning ranks a distant sixth in U.S. homes as the cause of preventable deaths. The primary cause of preventable mortality in U.S. homes is from Radon gas. Radon causes 21,000 lung cancer deaths in the U.S. Both the U.S. Surgeon General and the EPA have identified Radon gas as the second leading cause of lung cancer, as well as the primary cause of lung cancer in non-smokers. For over two decades, the EPA has recommended that all homes be tested for Radon. One in fifteen homes have Radon gas levels that are at levels determined as a significant risk to the occupants. While testing and correction of the radon levels is relatively inexpensive, I find that the majority of my clients opt out of testing, again to save money, and or lack of acceptance regarding the real and present danger of Radon. Clients can see the potential danger of a pool to children, but they cannot see, taste or smell Radon gas. In addition, I run into real estate agents, property owners, bankers, and investors insisting that there is no Radon in California. The California Department of Health, thousands of Radon test results and 2,000 annual lung cancer deaths from radon in California disagree from these misinformed perspectives. California law requires that the Radon gas test be conducted by a Department of Health registered radon technician, during a real estate escrow, to prevent tampering. However, a new homeowner can conduct their own test after they take possession of the property. Low cost Radon test kits (about $10-$30), can be obtained from local hardware stores. The other primary annual causes of preventable death in U.S. Homes include: falls 6,000; Poisoning 5,000; Fires 3,000; and Air Obstructions (strangulations) 1,000. Home Inspectors can report on safety prevention issues for all of these items as well: Falls (stairs, handrails, flooring, grounds); Poisoning (child safety latches); Fires, (smoke detectors, fire egress, electrical); Air Obstructions (window cover cords). The home inspectors primary standard of care is to advise and educate their clients on home safety conditions and prevention strategies for these primary in-home safety issues. It is critical that home inspectors continue to inspect, educate and report to their clients on these safety conditions to help prevent tragic, but preventable deaths. For more information on Radon and home inspections contact the author. Submitted by: Steve Zivolich
Page 4 |
Congratulations! New Candidates Richard W Sarette New CCIs John L. Briere New Affiliates Ed Daher
|
|
|
||
|
November — December 2009 | Archives
|
||
|
This series of columns is designed to familiarize CREIA members with “The Glossary Project” which is “Standardized Terminology for the Professional Real Estate Inspector”. This is a must have for all inspectors and is especially helpful in preparing the candidate for the CREIA CCI test as most of the terms in the test are defined in The Glossary Project. It is available from shop.CREIA.org.
Click here for the answers (Sorry members only)
The following is a link to a Members Only discussion from the T.I.E. on how various inspectors would handle reporting damage/defects that were visible to them and may or may not have been visible and/or reported by the prior inspector(s). Home Safety, the Primary Duty of Home Inspectors Tragic news was reported today in California, of two year old twin girls drowning in their families pool. This shocking news is a reminder to home inspectors that the primary duty to our clients is home safety. Drowning is primarily of young children and accounts for 800 in home deaths in the U.S. each year. When conducting a home inspection, often times my clients opt out of a pool inspection as part of their inspection, to save money. When they make this decision, I always still review with them the importance of effective safety barriers for pools, spas and fountains, for their children and guest children. A proper barrier system of fencing and self-closing gates would defeat any young child’s attempts to access to access a water area. Knowing the professional standards of my home inspection CREIA and ASHI peers, I am certain that they review these water safety issues with their clients as well. This tragedy, while it will help draw essential attention to the danger of child drowning, does not educate the public as to the primary cause of death in U.S. homes. In fact, drowning ranks a distant sixth in U.S. homes as the cause of preventable deaths. The primary cause of preventable mortality in U.S. homes is from Radon gas. Radon causes 21,000 lung cancer deaths in the U.S. Both the U.S. Surgeon General and the EPA have identified Radon gas as the second leading cause of lung cancer, as well as the primary cause of lung cancer in non-smokers. For over two decades, the EPA has recommended that all homes be tested for Radon. One in fifteen homes have Radon gas levels that are at levels determined as a significant risk to the occupants. While testing and correction of the radon levels is relatively inexpensive, I find that the majority of my clients opt out of testing, again to save money, and or lack of acceptance regarding the real and present danger of Radon. Clients can see the potential danger of a pool to children, but they cannot see, taste or smell Radon gas. In addition, I run into real estate agents, property owners, bankers, and investors insisting that there is no Radon in California. The California Department of Health, thousands of Radon test results and 2,000 annual lung cancer deaths from radon in California disagree from these misinformed perspectives. California law requires that the Radon gas test be conducted by a Department of Health registered radon technician, during a real estate escrow, to prevent tampering. However, a new homeowner can conduct their own test after they take possession of the property. Low cost Radon test kits (about $10-$30), can be obtained from local hardware stores. The other primary annual causes of preventable death in U.S. Homes include: falls 6,000; Poisoning 5,000; Fires 3,000; and Air Obstructions (strangulations) 1,000. Home Inspectors can report on safety prevention issues for all of these items as well: Falls (stairs, handrails, flooring, grounds); Poisoning (child safety latches); Fires, (smoke detectors, fire egress, electrical); Air Obstructions (window cover cords). The home inspectors primary standard of care is to advise and educate their clients on home safety conditions and prevention strategies for these primary in-home safety issues. It is critical that home inspectors continue to inspect, educate and report to their clients on these safety conditions to help prevent tragic, but preventable deaths. For more information on Radon and home inspections contact the author. Submitted by: Steve Zivolich
Page 4 |
Congratulations! New Candidates Richard W Sarette New CCIs John L. Briere New Affiliates Ed Daher
|
|
|
||
|
November — December 2009 | Archives
|
||
|
Lessons in Risk Management: The Inaccessible Crawlspace Although some insurance claims are due to negligence on the part of the inspector, most are not. Most are the result of comments made, or not made, at the inspection and in the report. The Inspector performed an inspection of an older home that had a crawlspace. There was a small area, somewhat of a cellar, that was accessible and a very limited portion of the crawlspace was visible from the cellar. In his report under the “Foundation” section, the inspector wrote, “crawlspace partially not accessible,” along with describing some conditions needing repair. This comment would seem to meet or exceed nationally accepted standards of practice and clearly alert the client that portions of the subfloor area were not accessible. The comment did not mention the crawlspace was not inspected even though we would assume that if not accessible. Sometime after the inspection the buyer submitted a claim for non-disclosed deteriorated wood and significant repairs needed to the floor framing in the crawlspace. Upon further review it was discovered that numerous defects were clearly visible by simply looking with a flashlight through the subfloor ventilation opening screens. Defects were visible even though this portion of the crawlspace itself was not accessible due to lack of clearance between the soil and floor framing (clearance was 1-foot to zero). The moral of this story: the inspector mentioned that the crawlspace was inaccessible, meeting or exceeding national standards of practice. However, the fact that defects were visible simply by shining a light through ventilation openings made defending the claim difficult. Simply mentioning that the crawlspace was not accessible, while complying with the standard of practice, does not alert the client to the magnitude of potential hidden conditions. We recommend further elaboration regarding the potentials when areas are inaccessible:
As a further recommendation, if there is any opportunity to see portions of the building through alternative methods, such as a crawlspace via the ventilation openings, we recommend using them as long as the methods are safe. If areas are not accessible for inspection be sure to report the condition and the potential hidden conditions that may be present.
Chinese Drywall Update - November 2, 2009 What is Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”)? MDL is a procedure to consolidate similar cases for the purpose of, among other things, conserving resources and preventing inconsistent rulings in different courts. All such cases are assigned to a judge in one federal district court. In June 2009, a panel of federal judges ruled that lawsuits filed in federal courts against home builders, suppliers and manufacturers of Chinese drywall would be transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana, where Judge Eldon Fallon will preside over discovery and pre-trial hearings. As one of his first tasks, Judge Fallon appointed a steering committee consisting of several plaintiffs' and defendants' lawyers. This committee is responsible for arguing pretrial motions, deciding which legal theories to pursue and conducting common discovery. On November 2, 2009, Knauf (one of the manufacturers of Chinese drywall) agreed to accept service of lawsuits for a period of one month. Until now, service of process (the formal mechanism by which one serves a defendant with a lawsuit) was required to be made through the Hague Convention, which costs approximately $15,000 per claimant. Claimants who have Knauf drywall will now be able to consolidate their claims in one omnibus class action complaint against Knauf and other defendants who were involved in the manufacture, sale, importation, brokerage, distribution, construction and installation of homes containing Knauf drywall. Homeowners who wish to participate must submit evidence that their home contains Knauf drywall, such as photos of markings or visual inspection reports ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 2, 2009. Preservation Order On October 9, 2009, Judge Fallon entered a Preservation of Physical Evidence Order requiring all persons or entities who have or who intend to pursue a claim relating to Chinese drywall to preserve physical evidence at their own expense. Thus, those who undertake to repair their homes must comply with this order in order to pursue a claim at a later date. Consumer Product Safety Commission Findings Homeowners were dealt a blow last week when the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that further studies are needed to establish a nexus between Chinese drywall and corrosion and health effects. The Press Statement and full report is available on www.cpsc.gov/info/drywall The Florida Department of Health studies found elevated levels of sulfur gases coming from Chinese drywall samples (ten homes), but according to Dr. David Krause, these levels do not present imminent or foreseeable health hazards to homeowners. Further studies are needed to determine the health effects from gases in lower concentrations. Insurers Continue to Drop Homeowners Last month, we learned that Citizens canceled a homeowner's policy of insurance because the owner had Chinese drywall. Citizens then reversed it decision and reinstated the policy. Other insurers, however, continue to drop homeowners, some citing a change in exposure, namely that the property is vacant (even if the homeowner temporary left their home because of adverse health effects from the Chinese drywall). Other insurers are canceling policies because the Chinese drywall presents a higher risk of exposure. One must wonder how insurers are dropping homeowners with Chinese drywall yet the CPSC has yet to establish a nexus between Chinese drywall, corrosion and health effects. Even more bizarre are lenders who are refusing to abate mortgages until homes are determined to be uninhabitable. Of course, if a homeowner fails to insure his/her home, the lender may impose force placed insurance. Loans for Remediation - Will HUD ever offer assistance? The House voted unanimously to amend the "Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 2009" to allow the SBA to lend money to homeowners for the repair or replacement of Chinese drywall. However, there still is no approved remediation protocol, nor has the federal government made a determination that the drywall needs to be replaced. As such, the amendment does nothing to assist homeowners now. Meanwhile, HUD is offering no assistance to homeowners with Chinese drywall, other than to recommend that homeowners seek foreclosure avoidance counseling, which I find rather insulting. Visit www.chinesedrywall.com to learn more about Chinese drywall. Please send your questions, comments or feedback to: help@chinesedrywall.com. *Allison Grant, Esq., is a partner with the law firm of Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Gora, P.A., in Boca Raton, Florida. (561) 477-7800. If you are not represented by an attorney and have any questions about these new developments or wish to discuss your legal rights, please feel free to call me. *This article does not constitute legal or any other professional advice, and is not intended to create a professional relationship including, but not limited to, an attorney-client relationship. Copyright 2009 - Chinese Drywall Marketing, LLC Page 5 |
Congratulations! New Candidates Richard W Sarette New CCIs John L. Briere New Affiliates Ed Daher
|
|
|
||
|
November — December 2009 | Archives
|
||
|
Lessons in Risk Management: The Inaccessible Crawlspace Although some insurance claims are due to negligence on the part of the inspector, most are not. Most are the result of comments made, or not made, at the inspection and in the report. The Inspector performed an inspection of an older home that had a crawlspace. There was a small area, somewhat of a cellar, that was accessible and a very limited portion of the crawlspace was visible from the cellar. In his report under the “Foundation” section, the inspector wrote, “crawlspace partially not accessible,” along with describing some conditions needing repair. This comment would seem to meet or exceed nationally accepted standards of practice and clearly alert the client that portions of the subfloor area were not accessible. The comment did not mention the crawlspace was not inspected even though we would assume that if not accessible. Sometime after the inspection the buyer submitted a claim for non-disclosed deteriorated wood and significant repairs needed to the floor framing in the crawlspace. Upon further review it was discovered that numerous defects were clearly visible by simply looking with a flashlight through the subfloor ventilation opening screens. Defects were visible even though this portion of the crawlspace itself was not accessible due to lack of clearance between the soil and floor framing (clearance was 1-foot to zero). The moral of this story: the inspector mentioned that the crawlspace was inaccessible, meeting or exceeding national standards of practice. However, the fact that defects were visible simply by shining a light through ventilation openings made defending the claim difficult. Simply mentioning that the crawlspace was not accessible, while complying with the standard of practice, does not alert the client to the magnitude of potential hidden conditions. We recommend further elaboration regarding the potentials when areas are inaccessible:
As a further recommendation, if there is any opportunity to see portions of the building through alternative methods, such as a crawlspace via the ventilation openings, we recommend using them as long as the methods are safe. If areas are not accessible for inspection be sure to report the condition and the potential hidden conditions that may be present.
Chinese Drywall Update - November 2, 2009 What is Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”)? MDL is a procedure to consolidate similar cases for the purpose of, among other things, conserving resources and preventing inconsistent rulings in different courts. All such cases are assigned to a judge in one federal district court. In June 2009, a panel of federal judges ruled that lawsuits filed in federal courts against home builders, suppliers and manufacturers of Chinese drywall would be transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana, where Judge Eldon Fallon will preside over discovery and pre-trial hearings. As one of his first tasks, Judge Fallon appointed a steering committee consisting of several plaintiffs' and defendants' lawyers. This committee is responsible for arguing pretrial motions, deciding which legal theories to pursue and conducting common discovery. On November 2, 2009, Knauf (one of the manufacturers of Chinese drywall) agreed to accept service of lawsuits for a period of one month. Until now, service of process (the formal mechanism by which one serves a defendant with a lawsuit) was required to be made through the Hague Convention, which costs approximately $15,000 per claimant. Claimants who have Knauf drywall will now be able to consolidate their claims in one omnibus class action complaint against Knauf and other defendants who were involved in the manufacture, sale, importation, brokerage, distribution, construction and installation of homes containing Knauf drywall. Homeowners who wish to participate must submit evidence that their home contains Knauf drywall, such as photos of markings or visual inspection reports ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 2, 2009. Preservation Order On October 9, 2009, Judge Fallon entered a Preservation of Physical Evidence Order requiring all persons or entities who have or who intend to pursue a claim relating to Chinese drywall to preserve physical evidence at their own expense. Thus, those who undertake to repair their homes must comply with this order in order to pursue a claim at a later date. Consumer Product Safety Commission Findings Homeowners were dealt a blow last week when the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that further studies are needed to establish a nexus between Chinese drywall and corrosion and health effects. The Press Statement and full report is available on www.cpsc.gov/info/drywall The Florida Department of Health studies found elevated levels of sulfur gases coming from Chinese drywall samples (ten homes), but according to Dr. David Krause, these levels do not present imminent or foreseeable health hazards to homeowners. Further studies are needed to determine the health effects from gases in lower concentrations. Insurers Continue to Drop Homeowners Last month, we learned that Citizens canceled a homeowner's policy of insurance because the owner had Chinese drywall. Citizens then reversed it decision and reinstated the policy. Other insurers, however, continue to drop homeowners, some citing a change in exposure, namely that the property is vacant (even if the homeowner temporary left their home because of adverse health effects from the Chinese drywall). Other insurers are canceling policies because the Chinese drywall presents a higher risk of exposure. One must wonder how insurers are dropping homeowners with Chinese drywall yet the CPSC has yet to establish a nexus between Chinese drywall, corrosion and health effects. Even more bizarre are lenders who are refusing to abate mortgages until homes are determined to be uninhabitable. Of course, if a homeowner fails to insure his/her home, the lender may impose force placed insurance. Loans for Remediation - Will HUD ever offer assistance? The House voted unanimously to amend the "Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 2009" to allow the SBA to lend money to homeowners for the repair or replacement of Chinese drywall. However, there still is no approved remediation protocol, nor has the federal government made a determination that the drywall needs to be replaced. As such, the amendment does nothing to assist homeowners now. Meanwhile, HUD is offering no assistance to homeowners with Chinese drywall, other than to recommend that homeowners seek foreclosure avoidance counseling, which I find rather insulting. Visit www.chinesedrywall.com to learn more about Chinese drywall. Please send your questions, comments or feedback to: help@chinesedrywall.com. *Allison Grant, Esq., is a partner with the law firm of Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Gora, P.A., in Boca Raton, Florida. (561) 477-7800. If you are not represented by an attorney and have any questions about these new developments or wish to discuss your legal rights, please feel free to call me. *This article does not constitute legal or any other professional advice, and is not intended to create a professional relationship including, but not limited to, an attorney-client relationship. Copyright 2009 - Chinese Drywall Marketing, LLC Page 5 |
Congratulations! New Candidates Richard W Sarette New CCIs John L. Briere New Affiliates Ed Daher
|
|
| < Prev |
|---|