Push-Button Test for Detectors Is Alarmingly Inaccurate
Question: Before buying my home, I hired a home inspector, and I remember that he tested all the smoke alarms. But shortly after we moved in, we had a fire and none of the alarms responded. How could this have occurred when the alarms passed inspection?
Answer: The standard method for testing a smoke alarm is to push the built-in test button, as recommended in the manufacturer’s instructions that accompany every alarm. This is the method typically employed by professional home inspectors and most homeowners as part of routine home maintenance. But this test method overlooks the basic design characteristics of smoke detection devices.
The standard test button on a smoke alarm does not verify the ability of the fixture to detect smoke. Instead, it merely confirms that there is an active power source to the fixture (battery or 110 volts) and that the sound component (buzzer, horn, etc.) works. This means that a smoke alarm could pass a routine inspection without being able to detect smoke particles in the air.
The best alternative method for testing a smoke alarm is to perform an actual smoke test or to use an aerosol spray specifically designed for testing alarms.
There are two primary reasons why this type of test is not a common practice among home inspectors: First, it is not generally known, even among inspectors, that smoke alarm test buttons do not provide adequate testing. Second, smoke testing of an alarm can sometimes be problematic.
In some cases, alarms are difficult to reset after having been exposed to smoke or other vapors. When testing an alarm with smoke, an inspector runs the risk of having the device sound off for a prolonged time. This may be an acceptable inconvenience, considering the life-and-death importance of a functional alarm.
Inspector Reopens Drainpipe Controversy
Q: In the past, you have stated that the drainpipe for a water heater must terminate at the exterior of a building, even when the water heater is installed in a garage.
As a building inspector, I want to point out that the code section that says the drain must extend to the outside of the building is followed by a sentence that reads, “Such drains may terminate at other approved locations.”
Many building departments, as a matter of policy, use the latter sentence to allow the drain to terminate at the garage floor. Draining to the garage floor is an accepted practice within the building industry because garage walls are elevated above the slab and because garage floors are sloped to promote drainage toward the driveway.
A: Thank you for reopening this topic of controversy among inspectors. As you know, there is no shortage of divergent opinions among building officials and inspectors.
The code defines itself as a minimum standard. Therefore, the prescription to terminate an overflow pipe at the exterior of a building can be regarded as a minimum requirement. The implied intent of this standard is to prevent water damage to the interior of the building and its contents. The code statement that allows that “such drains may terminate at other approved locations” should be understood in light of this minimum standard and its intent.
Other approved locations should be those that likewise prevent water damage. Examples, therefore, should be standpipes, laundry sinks, floor drains and the like.
The fact that a garage slab is sloped for drainage doesn’t take into account that the floor is frequently used for the storage of personal property. Such storage commonly includes wood furniture, boxes of books, clothing and sundry valuables and near-valuables, all subject to costly damage if exposed to water. On the safety side of the issue, stored metal containers, such as cans of thinner and other combustible fluids, could rust if they get wet.
Because of these considerations, I think exterior termination of the overflow pipe is the more practical solution. Building departments are free to interpret the code differently.
Neighbors’ Tree Roots Break Through Garage
Q: While cleaning our garage, we moved a cabinet that was in place since we bought the house several months ago and noticed that roots from our neighbors’ palm tree had broken through the stucco wall and the cement foundation. The tree (not the stump) was removed a few months back, but neither our neighbors nor the seller of the home informed us that the tree had become a part of our garage. Rather than remove the entire stump, they left it in place. Will the stump eventually cause termite or structural damage? Who is responsible for the damage and repairs? Our home is 3 years old and it was inspected before our purchasing it.
A: Structural damage often occurs when trees with the potential for significant growth are thoughtlessly planted next to buildings. Here’s my advice:
* Have the tree stump removed to prevent termite infestation.
* It is possible that your homeowners insurance may cover damage caused by tree roots, but you’ll have to check with your insurance agent to verify.
* It is possible that your neighbor may bear some responsibility for the damage to your property, but this is a question for an attorney, rather than a home inspector.
* As to responsibility for repairs: The inspector who checked your home before purchase may be off the hook for not observing a concealed defect within the garage, but there remains the question of why he failed to observe the tree damage at the exterior of the building; and it would seem reasonable to expect that the sellers of the property were aware of the problem. If they were aware of the root intrusion and its effects to the building, they had a legal obligation to disclose this to you. Failure to do so would constitute a violation of state law.
Firewood Storage Area Presents Safety Threat
Q: We purchased our home about 10 years ago, and one of the features we liked was the firewood storage cabinet next to the living room fireplace. Now that we’re selling the property, the buyer’s home inspector found a problem apparently gone unnoticed since the house was built. The interior of the firewood cabinet provides open access to the metal casing behind the fireplace unit, and firewood and other kindling materials are in direct contact with this metal surface. How could this condition have been allowed at the time of construction?
A: In the course of constructing a home, there are always a few defects that escape detection. In most instances, shortcomings are limited to cosmetic flaws or items of inconvenience. Sometimes, however, they involve elements of critical safety, as was discovered behind your fireplace.
It is also possible that the firewood cabinet was not part of the original construction but was added later. Regardless of when the error was made, this is a significant fire hazard and should be corrected immediately.
A manufactured fireplace consists of a sheet metal box lined with special ceramic tiles, known as refractory plates. The purpose of the plates is to prevent overheating of the metal box. But when large fires are maintained for long periods, the metal surfaces can still become quite hot. Direct contact with firewood or other combustible materials can cause spontaneous combustion within the walls.
Although direct access behind such fireplaces is prohibited, this
kind of construction defect can be found in a number of homes. In some instances, utility closets or storage areas provide such exposure, and homeowners may unwittingly store flammable objects such as magazines and brooms against firebox surfaces.
Anyone with open access behind a metal fireplace unit should hire a licensed general contractor to construct an approved fire separation around the fixture.
If you have questions or comments, contact Barry Stone through his Web site at https://www.housedetective.
com. Distributed by Access Media Group.
