[Michael Leavitt's Home Page | Back Issues of the MMM | Current Issue of the MMM]
 |
Michael Leavitt & Co Inspections, Inc. |
 |
 |
MONDAY MORNING MESSENGER |
|
Message prepared especially for Members of the American Institute of Inspectors® as well as Home Inspectors abroad |
May 6, 2002 GOOOOOD MORNING, A.I.I.....
It's a great day here in Orem, Utah. Saturday found the Leavitt family at the annual Scout Expo 2002 held at Thanksgiving Point in Lehi, Utah. What a day it was. We raced obstacle courses and ate pizza, climbed on rope bridges and ate snow cones, shot blow darts and ate roasted nuts. The day was full of fun and activity. The photo shows us as we successfully launched our 2 liter pop bottle 75 feet into orbit with the only source of propulsion being my son Adam pumping the bicycle pump.
Excitement raced through my son's veins seeing so many Scouts and families together having fun. Whether it was beating the Indian drums or learning to tie a square knot, my son was thrilled with the challenges placed before him. As his Dad I made sure that we sucked the marrow out of the experience.
Cub Scouting is a great program because it challenges boys to learn about new and exciting subjects. It gives them an excuse to learn. It gives them an excuse to push themselves. It gives them the excuse to explore all of the wonders that this world provides. The best part is that it gives me the chance to share in Adam's adventure. Little Aaron at age four also had a blast. We dressed him in a red scout activity shirt and he shared in all of the Scout Expo 2002 fun too.
PHASE INSPECTIONSIs anyone out there doing any phase inspections? I recently got an offer to do some of these for new construction. Apparently, they are for lenders to make sure the work is getting done. It may be good filler work for in between my own inspections.
Basically it sounds like you visit the site, take a few pics and check off % of work completed on their form. Is anyone doing any of these? Any pitfalls? Any and all info is appreciated. Mark Daughtry - Redmond, WA
PHOTO CHALLENGE FEEDBACK #102 
What's "Wrong" is "it is what it is" EIFS! Trim detail with out proper expansion rod (gasket)/ caulking joint. Trim detail not sloped on top. It is not clear, but the weep holes may be obstructed, or non-existent. If this is a storm window, how does the main window drain? Jim Archer Florence, OR
Jim is right about the latter, but this is not EIFS. This is an everyday hardcoat stucco installation and backer rod and caulking are not required. Look closely at the covered weep hole or drain hole. The installer applied the stucco up onto the window frame and filled in the drain holes with stucco. When you looked into the slider channel there was a green moss growing. This is due to the fact that the water cannot escape the drain channel and relies completely on the evaporation process to dry out the window channel.
As a side note, Jim made the point of requiring backer rod and caulking at the stucco/window joint. About a month ago we sat with a building official and discussed stucco applications in our northern Utah area. We questioned him as to why we did not see backer rod and caulking. He stated emphatically that after reviewing the major manufacturer's installation specs and speaking with the manufacturers on the phone that backer rod and caulking is not a requirement on EIFS installations. Instead, it is only RECOMMENDED by the manufacturers. Until the day that they put in print that backer rod and caulking are REQUIRED by the manufacturers we will never see it on the run of the mill applications here in Utah. I was flabbergasted with this Code Enforcement Official's response. What are your thoughts?
CPSC P.S.D. RECALLFor Immediate Release April 24, 2002 Release # 02-146 CPSC Media Contact: Scott Wolfson (301) 504-0580 Ext. 1189 Power Planner Recall Hotline: (800) 808-8897
CPSC, Coast Energy Management Announce Recall of Power Saving Devices
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Coast Energy Management Inc., of Chandler, Ariz., is voluntarily recalling about 45,000 Energy Smart Power Planners. The Power Planner is a device connected between motorized appliances and wall outlets that is intended to save electricity. These Power Planners have reversed polarity, posing a shock hazard to consumers.
Coast Energy Management has not received any reports of incidents or injuries involving these Power Planners. This recall is being conducted to prevent the possibility of injuries.
The recalled Power Planners are white plastic, about 5-inches in height, and have the words "Energy Smart" printed across the front in green writing. They have a 10-amp rating and the model numbers SP010-N or SP010-NV. The model numbers are printed on a green and silver label attached to the left side of the device. The device has a three-prong plug built into the back and a three-prong receptacle on one side. A green light at the bottom of the unit flashes when the product is first plugged in and then lights steadily, indicating proper operation. The recall includes Power Planners with lot numbers 6/2-01, 10/2-01, 25/2- 01, 28/5-01, 20/6-01 and units without a lot number. The lot number is printed on a label affixed to the back of the device.
Home Depot, Costco, and Orchard Supply Hardware stores sold these Power Planners from September 2000 through April 2002 for between $40 and $45.
Consumers should unplug these devices immediately and contact Coast Energy Management to receive a replacement and a free gift. Consumers can contact Coast Energy Management at (800) 808-8897 between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. MT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's web site at www.energysmart.com.
GARAGE DOOR OPENERS CONTINUEDLast weeks saga continues as John Rebenstorff fills us in on the details of his return visit to the scene where he mangled a garage door by simply pressing the open/close button.
Here' s the rest of the story.
The garage door opener did not fail when checking the auto reverse. It failed when the button was pushed to close the door. The auto reverse pressure setting was adjusted to maximum pressure.
Yesterday I met with both the buying and selling agent at the site. I took pictures of the door and damage. While they were both there I again attempted to open and close the door several times- while applying pressure to the point where it buckled. The door worked fine.
After further investigation this is what I found. The door when closing would get about half way and meet resistance due to improper mounting to the center rail and a loose guide wheel. With the pressure setting at low or medium the door would stop at this point. Hence the owner reset the setting to high to over come this resistance and the door would close. It was only a matter of time before the door would bind and buckle due to improper installation and adjustment. I explained to the agents the auto reverse when properly adjusted can perform double duty; 1-prevent injury to a child, 2- stop the garage door from binding then buckling when door rails or anything else prevents smooth operation of the door. I further explained what it is I am hired to do and in that pursuit found the door not functioning properly. I asked if they expect me to repair or replace all the items identified in the report. They did not. I explained to them the metal door panel and some minor support brackets will need to be replaced and the rest of the door checked for loose bolts or nuts, brace added to door guide and your back in business. The buyers agent (my how high agent) apologized for his manner and attitude the day before and thanked me for taking the time to come back out and explain what happened, the sellers agent said she will tell the seller due to mechanical failure he will have to have the door repaired prior to the close of escrow. She also asked me for some cards and flyers.
I want to thank you all for you responses they helped me in deciding what approach to take- I was willing to pay for the repairs if it came to that, but felt I that maybe a little more tack and diplomacy on my part might prevent paying. In principle I was right- In reality I'd pay. John Rebenstorff - Orangevale, CA
TESTING GARAGE DOOR OPENERS CONTINUEDJohn Rebenstorff's situation above spawned a much more in depth topic on the testing of garage door openers. I realize that John's situation had nothing to do with his testing of the downward force of the garage door. Instead, it has everything to do with a homeowner messing up the garage door settings. Last week I asked the question......... Do you support changing the garage door opener portion of our SOP's? Why/Why Not?
I was very surprised with the responses to the above question. It seems that the majority of you like having the responsibility of testing the pressure sensor on garage door openers. Here are some of the responses.
I do not! 
It could be a very serious omission not to test it. How would we feel if a child (or anyone/any living animal for that matter,) were injured and we hadn't tested it, not to mention the liability? It is a safety item and we should do our jobs as professionals!
I for one have never damaged one, but have had many occasions where I quit testing because of too much pressure and or the drive track was beginning to bend as I watch it during the test while applying pressure at the center of the door from the inside.
When I see this start to happen, it becomes an automatic recommendation to have it evaluated by a licensed, professional, overhead door installer. Ron Cloyd - Klamath Falls, OR
I am not a member of AII yet, but it seems totally ridiculous not to test the reverse just because the eyes are present. Older units do not have them and they are not a guarantee anyway that the safety feature is functioning correctly. We are not there to tell the client if things are present or not, but to inform them of defective systems and unsafe items. Maybe we shouldn't go into the attic because we might slip off the joist and damage the ceiling finish, or run the furnace because the unit is 25 years old and might break down etc etc etc.
P.S. Pay for something you didn't break??? That is the price you pay if you are in the realtors pocket, try not to rely so heavily on their sole support if you cant stand up to their blackmail tactics and intimidations practices. If they need help understanding you didn't break the "whatever item just broke" Give them the ole analogy of driving a car when the Firestone tire blows out. Was it Ford, Firestone, Or the driver of the Explorer that is responsible??? Chris Burkhart - Sandy Ut
Absolutely not! See my post that was too late to make the MMM for reasoning. I like what Jon G. said and will carry a short piece of 1 1/2" x 1 1/2" wood in my bag of tools. Thanks Jon for that tidbit. Jim Lucas - Camino, CA
Jim's prior post read...... You raise a valid question Michael about testing both photo cell and down pressure. However, consider this----your Lexus (I know you have one what with all that dough you make) is straddling the beam and Adam inadvertantly hits the door opener button. And wow, the down pressure is excessive and the door will not auto reverse. Hum, what have we here?--- a broken windshield or dented SUV.
Now that is exactly the story I tell my client or the seller when they question my M.O. So that's my story and I'm stick'in to it. Jim Lucas, Camino, CA
Now that is an unfair approach for your argument Jim. You are relying on my personal emotions to try to win your argument. Remembering back to debate training years ago, the indication of a win came as your opponent had to draw upon emotion because they ran out of facts. Not that your stance is not plausible, but I don't want the responsibility of paying for a Lexus windshield. I don't mind inspecting with the responsibility for child safety, but I don't really care about the Lexus. Human safety is the key. So here is the challenge.........
GARAGE DOOR OPENER CHALLENGEI challenge the readership to scour the news archives and share with us any real life experience of an injury to any individual since the requirement for electric eye beams when the eye beam has been installed per the manufacturers installation specs and was in working order.
The responses from Jim, Chris and Ron are all based upon a supposed fear that our clients will get injured due to our lack of testing the downward force pressure sensor. I believe that it is wrong to place this responsibility upon my shoulders as an inspector. Last week in the MMM I backed up my viewpoint with a review of five different Standards of Practices. The result was that only A.I.I. and the State of Oregon still require testing this feature. The other Associations have blazed the trail to eliminate this specific requirement. Our A.I.I. SOP's require testing the pressure sensor, yet are totally void of comment on the electric eye beam testing. This means that as an ASHI, CREIA, or Nevada Inspector you are not required to test the downward force pressure sensor function. So why not remove the requirement and leave it to those that want to exceed the SOP's to go ahead and perform the test?
Let's face the simple fact that older units that do not have electric eye beams are outdated. They either need the addition of electric eye beams or they need full replacement. How many of you have broken the chain sprocket on an older unit that was set too stiff or did not have the auto reverse feature? There is little to be gained by testing the downward force on our limited visual inspections. If an inspector wants to exceed the SOP's and test, then go for it. I believe that it is our responsibility to let clients know when they have older and less safe units. This can be done by identifying if an electric eye beam is present or not. If it is, then it can easily be tested without risk of damaging the door. If it is missing and the unit is too old to adapt the electric eyes, then replace the unit. This is much more in line with a limited visual evaluation.
I will change my opinion when I see the facts that show that people are still getting hurt with the working electric eye beam in place. As for the pressure sensor, I would prefer to provide my clients with a link to the info on how they can test this feature monthly according to the manufacturers protocols. Let's leave this responsibility upon the homeowner's shoulders. The fact that this test could be omitted should not shake anybody's confidence in our evaluation process. Just stop and think for a moment of other items that we do not test.......
1) SAFETY RELEASE VALVES - We do not test these because they might drip afterwards. Yet, if the valve is faulty and the unit malfunctions, then the unit explodes and cause major damage.
2) SMOKE ALARM SENSORS - We push the test button, but we do not simulate a fire with a can of test smoke. Testing the button does not mean that the sensor is working. Instead, it tells that the units sounding alarm is still functional.
3) GAS MAIN SHUT OFF VALVES - As Don Pearman taught us in Reno last month, many of the gas main shut off valves are frozen in the "ON" position. We don't test those because...... well I guess that it is because it would require carrying a big wrench. It would also run the risk of putting out gas pilot lights.
4) SEALED GAS FIREPLACES when the pilot light is turned off - I still test them because it requires turning on the hand controlled gas valve, holding in the button, and pushing on the BBQ style ignitor. Our logic for not lighting these units is that it may have been shut off because of a dangerous leak. We do not want the liability of blowing up the house, yet it requires no special tools, lighter, or equipment to light the units and test. One could argue that we are responsible to light them and test because the process is part of the normal operating controls that the homeowner must use to get the unit lit. We still prefer to dodge this liability and hide behind the standards....... No feedback needed on this point.
5) THERMOSTATIC ATTIC FANS - The testing of these on a moderate day would be quite easy with the turn of a screwdriver on the thermostat to ensure that the fan comes on and operates smoothly. We are not required by SOP's to test these items.
I would much rather us stiffen the requirements in some areas and relax the requirements in other areas. My first stiffening area is the testing of hydromassage therapy tubs. With their popularity in the last decade increasing I would think it laughable for an Inspector to not fill and test the units on the basis that the A.I.I. SOP's do not require the Inspector to test them. This could be the source of a loss of credibility as word got out that you didn't evaluate them. This is similar to the inspector who doesn't walk lower pitched roofs out of fear of damaging the roofing material. Or the Inspector who will not enter an attic because they can't see where to step on the truss cords due to the insulation. I guess that it is time to get off the sop box now............
PHOTO CHALLENGE #103This photo has been flying around some other inspection forums and I thought that it was too good to be true. You all surely remember the mouse in the subpanel, well this one is equally as shocking..........
 |
QUOTABLE QUOTE: "When you are the owner of a small business, your business is the boss" Lorraine Miller |
HAVE A GREAT WEEK! Michael Leavitt & Co Inspections, Inc. The Most Qualified Inspector in Northern Utah! |
 |