Dear Barry: I hope you don’t mind another asbestos question. As a general contractor, I was bidding on the remodel of an old home. The ceilings had acoustic texture, sometimes known as “popcorn,” so I included the costs of testing and possible asbestos removal in my bid. The homeowners complained that two other contractors had also bid on the job and that neither contractor had mentioned asbestos. Because my bid included the additional costs, I did not get the job. What do you think of this? Bob
Dear Bob: Contractors who did not consider the possibility of asbestos in their bids may not realize that they are exposing themselves to financial liability and potential lawsuits.
Most of the acoustic ceilings installed from the 1950’s through the 1970’s contain asbestos. If the texture material is intact, it is not regarded as a significant health hazard. When removal or demolition takes place, the law requires that the material be tested and that handling, removal, and disposal be done by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor.
The homeowners who received your bid were informed by you of a potential problem, but chose to overlook it, supposedly for financial reasons. In so doing, they made a serious misjudgment, exposing themselves and others to a possible health hazard.
In a similar situation, several years ago, a remodeling contractor removed acoustic ceiling texture from a home without advising the owner of possible asbestos. Fabrics throughout the house, including carpets, drapes, upholstery, and clothing, were later found to be contaminated with asbestos fibers. All of these had to be sent to a toxic waste site, and the contractor was held to be financially liable for the losses.
The homeowners in your recent situation were not prudent in their decision. Hopefully, they will not come to regret that choice.
Dear Barry: When I purchased my home, I hired a home inspector. The only electrical problem he found was a charred wire in the fuse box. After moving in, I noticed that the lights kept dimming, so I called an electrician. He said that the panel was very old, that the charred wire was actually burnt through, and that some of the fuses were connected to more than one circuit, a condition he called “double-tapping.” Now I need to install a new breaker panel for a whole lot of money. So I called the home inspector. He said that he does not take things apart and inspect the inner workings. If that’s so, then how did he see the charred wire? What do you think I should do? Ryan
Dear Ryan: The home inspector is apparently giving you double-talk. It is the standard of practice for home inspectors to remove the inside cover on every electrical panel to enable inspection of the internal components. As you pointed out, your inspector apparently did this, or he would not have disclosed the charred wire. Therefore, he was in a position to see the other electrical defects and should have disclosed them. Even if he only disclosed the charred wire, his recommendation should have been evaluation and repair by a licensed electrician, prior to close of escrow, especially since this was an outdated fuse panel, rather than a breaker panel. Had he given you that advice, the remaining defects could have been discovered by the electrician before you took possession of the property. If he did not provide full disclosure of the panel defects and did not make the proper recommendation for the charred wire, then he should take some responsibility for lack of disclosure
On the other hand, if he did disclose further evaluation by a licensed electrician, it would have been your responsibility to follow that recommendation. In that case, failure to have followed the inspector’s advice would place the liability back in your court
If by these standards the home inspector remains liable, be sure to take photos of the electrical defects before having them repaired. This will enable you to prove your cased if you file a claim against the inspector
Dear Barry: We just moved from the big city to the country. So for the first time ever, we have a septic system and have to think about what goes down the drain. The contractor who inspected the septic tank advised us to flush an additive down the toilet once a month to maintain the bacteria level in the tank. Our new next-door neighbor says he’s never used the stuff and insists that it’s a waste of money. What’s your advice for the care and maintenance of a septic system? Jeffrey
Dear Jeffrey: Bacterial additives are often advised by septic contractors, but the need for this is debatable because micro-organisms are added to the tank every time solid waste is flushed down the toilet. In fact, more attention should be given to things that should not be flushed than things that should be.
Several studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of septic additives, including one that was published in the Journal of Environmental Health in 2008 and another that was conducted at the University of Ottawa in 2012. In each case, the additives did not significantly increase the bacterial level in the septic systems that were tested. Many septic contractors will no doubt disagree with these findings.
Rather than adding bacteria to your septic system, it is important to protect the bacterial environment that is already present. Here are some do’s and don’ts for maintaining the effectiveness of your septic system:
1) Avoid putting insoluble solids such as grease, fats, and oils down the drain because these can clog the leach lines that convey water from the septic tank into the ground. Keep this in mind when washing pots and pans.
2) Don’t put chemicals such as paint, paint thinner, bleach, etc. down the drain. People sometimes clean their paint brushes in sinks and toilets. This is definitely a no-no.
3) Minimize the use of your garbage disposal to avoid the accumulation of undigested organic solids in the tank. These can take a long time to decompose.
4) Do not let the salt brine from a water softener drain into your septic system. Instead, the discharge pipe from the softener should terminate in a ground sump or leach field designated for this purpose.
5) Minimize the amount of extra water that goes into the septic system. For example, rain gutters from the roof and yard drains should not drain to the septic tank or the leach field.
6) Do not park vehicles on ground surfaces above the leach field, as this can compact the subsurface absorption system.
7) Have your tank pumped and inspected in a timely manner, usually about every five years.
Laundry drains are often diverted to a ground sump or garden area to prevent detergents and other laundry additives from damaging the bacteria in the septic tank. The need for this precaution is often unwarranted because newer types of detergents and bleaches do not adversely affect the microbial environment in a septic tank when used in moderation. I can attest that my own septic system has consumed detergents for the past 10 years with no apparent ill-affects. This particular advice, however, is likely to draw active debate from some septic contractors.
The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector
Dear Barry: I installed new smoke alarms in my home about a year ago. Now that I’m selling the property, the buyer’s home inspector says these are not the best kind of smoke alarms. He recommends replacing them with the “photoelectric” kind. As long as the smoke alarms work when tested, what difference does it make if they’re one kind or another? Ben
Dear Ben: The purpose of a smoke alarm is to detect minute particles in the air and to make a loud noise when particles are present. There are currently three kinds of detectors on the market: ionization detectors, photoelectric detectors, and combinations of both.
When smoke alarms came into common use in the 1970’s, the only kind available was the ionization type. Ionization smoke detectors contain a small amount of a radioactive substance known as americium-241. This material creates a small electrical current between two metal plates. When smoke particles pass between these plates, the current is interrupted, and the alarm is activated. The problem with ionization detectors is that they respond best when there is a flaming fire but are slow to respond when there is smoke from a smoldering fire.
Photoelectric smoke detectors were developed in more recent years and have a different means for sensing the presence of particles in the air. In a photoelectric detector, there is a light source and a light-sensitive electric sensor. The light, however, is not directed toward the sensor. When smoke particles are present, the light strikes these particles and is reflected against the sensor, and this activates the alarm. The advantage with this type of smoke alarm is that it senses fires that are in their early stages of smoldering, before they burst into flames. This can make a life-saving time difference in many fire situations.
For maximum fire protection, dual alarms are available. These contain ionization and photoelectric sensors in a single unit. Unfortunately, there are no industry standards for the sensitivity of sensors in dual sensor alarms. Because of this, the ionization sensors in some dual alarms are not reliable. However, as long as the photoelectric sensor is functional, the alarm meets national standards established by Underwriters Laboratories.
Photoelectric smoke alarms are recommended by the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) because they are the most reliable and give the most advanced warnings when a fire begins to occur. The IAFF regards ionization alarms and dual alarms as unacceptable. This is why your buyer’s home inspector recommended that you upgrade to photoelectric smoke alarms.
Upgrading your smoke alarms may not be a legal requirement in your local area or in your purchase contract, but it is still advisable. It is also recommended that you get combination alarms: the kind that detect carbon monoxide (CO) as well as smoke because CO alarms can save lives and are now required near bedroom entrances and in other interior locations. If you do replace the current smoke alarms with combo alarms, find the ones that have a voice recording, indicating whether smoke or CO has been detected.
The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector
Dear Barry: Before buying my home, I hired a home inspector, and he reported no problems with the electrical subpanel in the bedroom closet. After moving in, I hired an electrician to install some light fixtures in the kitchen. He said the breaker panel was made by Federal Pacific, a brand that has been recalled as a fire hazard. He also said the panel had burn marks on the inside. At his urging, I let him replace the panel at a cost of $2880. After this, I called my home inspector to demand that he pay for the repair, since he failed to report these problems. The old panel had been thrown in the trash, but the inspector came over and showed me photos that he had taken of the panel during his inspection. The panel was actually a General Electric, not a Federal Pacific, and it had no perceptible burn marks. It now seems that my electrician was lying, and I’m wondering what to do. What do you think about this mess? Karen
Dear Karen: This situation has a number of complications and uncertainties. Here are the main issues:
1) You are faced with opposing testimonies from the home inspector and the electrician. The electrician says the panel was a Federal Pacific and had burn marks. The home inspector says the panel was a General Electric and did not have burn marks. Unfortunately, the old panel is no longer available as evidence. The home inspector, however, has presented photos to support his position. Apparently, someone is not telling the truth. Therefore, it is necessary to ask the question, “Does the home inspector’s photo depict your breaker panel or a panel from another property?” It may or may not be possible to answer that question conclusively.
2) Competent home inspectors routinely disclose Federal Pacific breaker panels as potential fire hazards, especially if evidence of overheating is apparent. Failure to make such disclosures is a matter of professional negligence. If your electrician’s claim is correct, then your home inspector was at fault. If his photos are authentic, the electrician is at fault.
3) Another issue involves your initial demand that the home inspector pay for the new breaker panel. When you were told that the panel needed replacement, you should have notified your inspector before having the panel replaced. A home inspector should have the opportunity to review a contested situation, to answer for what may or may not have been an error in the course of the inspection. Some home inspection contracts actually specify the right to see a claimed defect before it is repaired. The fact that the inspector was not given a chance to see the problem may absolve him of liability, regardless of whether he was at fault.
4) A cost of $2880 to replace a breaker panel is excessive. The panel itself probably cost less than two hundred dollars and probably took less than a day to install. When you weigh these numbers, how much was your electrician charging as an hourly wage? From this perspective, the electrician appears to lose credibility.
In view of the inexplicable cost for the new panel and the photo evidence provided by the home inspector, it appears that the electrician may owe you a refund and a humble apology. Otherwise, he should provide a convincing explanation.