Mark I understand the point your trying to make, but any inspector worth there salt better know the size and fuel type by a casual glance. I think this also falls under client expectation. if you mention that the SOP your using excludes fuel storage tanks and you don’t inspect it, they will have a hard time proving otherwise. I personally state this in the report so they can’t come back and say they never knew.
I tend to agree with Mark on this one due the fact, that if a tank condition depicts the condition of Ben’s photos as the example, I will surely note that there is a defect with the condition of the fuel oil tanks and recommend that a Plumbing or Mechanical contractor evaluate it’s condition.
Other than those circumstances, I normally just take a photo of the oil gauge to show how much oil is in the tank.
If a defect is staring you in the face, I don’t care what the SOP says.
Report it. HI’s report the condition of the Systems and Condition of the Dwelling, therefore the oil tank is part of the systems and if something is visibly wrong, it needs to be reported.
If the HI cannot evaluate it’s condition, recommend evaluation from an expert in that field.
That is exactly my point. If you note it is there, and you don’t inspect it, you had also better note that you didn’t inspect it in your report. If you just note it, and rely on the SOP to protect you from the inspection part, I think you are likely going to be paying.
Exactly my sediments exactly.
I agree also. You see an oil tank in the basement, and looks like this.
Ah, the SOP says I don’t have to inspect it, so there is nothing wrong.
What are you going to say when the judge is coming to get you?
http://thm-a02.yimg.com/image/89290a0c84c6c1bc
http://thm-a03.yimg.com/image/74b1e12c24a5c23a
http://thm-a03.yimg.com/image/37c1caefca244dba
http://thm-a01.yimg.com/image/76bffb50b8ef54c4
Here you go…
2.3. Basement, Foundation & Crawlspace
I. The inspector shall inspect:I. and report on any cutting, notching and boring of framing
members which may present a structural or safety concern.
II. The inspector is not required to: D. identify size, spacing, span, location or determine adequacy of
foundation bolting, bracing, joists, joist spans or support systems.
F. report on the adequacy of any structural system or component.
My personal interpretation:
- It is not possible to fulfill 2.3.I.I without “identifying size[s]” and “span[s]” and “joist spans.”
- And you can’t report something that may be a “structural concern” without “report[ing] on the adequacey of a structural component.”
- And you can’t fulfill 2.3.I.I without taking measurements, but “measurements” is included in the SOP definition of “Technically Exhaustive.”
I think the following training video (as requested by James) is a great way to either learn how to comply with the SOP or go beyond the SOP, depending up how you interpret the SOP Section 2.3.I.I. and 2.3.I.II.
I disagree with your personal interpretation.
2.3.I.I requires the inspector to observe any modifications or changes made to the structure since it was originally nailed in place.
2.3.I.II. would require the inspector to interpret and to apply code, and to re-enact the duties of the AHJ who preceded him by determining proper assembly as the structure was being nailed in place. When the builder applied the engineer’s specifications and the AHJ who preceded the home inspector “okayed” the assembly and issued the occupancy permit, it is no longer considered a defect. A home inspector who is not a licensed engineer would not be allowed to overrule the AHJ approved work of an engineer.
But, as we see in 2.3.I.I., when the home inspector observes that someone came along later and made modifications that could…in themselves…weaken the structure, he will report on it.
They are entirely different…there is no similarity at all.
heres another option Ben. Why not get with your brother and some of the NACHI lawyers, and a few of the Ethics committee and re-write the section so that no matter how you interpret the SOP it is clear. And no one can misinterpret it.
If it’s not clear, and is a point of debate, simply make it clear.
INACHI SoP require 3 different actions.
Inspect
Describe
Inspect and describe
In Ben’s example there are separate requirements to describe and inspect. It may seem they are separate actions but the SoP can appear to integrate them via 1.3.
1.3. An Inspection Report shall describe and identify, in written format, the inspected systems, structures, and components of the dwelling, and shall identify material defects observed. Inspection reports may contain recommendations regarding conditions reported or recommendations for correction, monitoring or further evaluation by professionals, but this is not required.
The definition of describe also infers a responsibility to describe condition.
4.11. Describe: To report in writing a system or component by its type, or other observed characteristics to distinguish it from other components used for the same purpose.
In this case how would you describe two fuel tanks? One is deteriorated and the other not. The observed distinguishing characteristic is deterioration, a defect.
The definition of inspect is unusual. It has no duty to report. Instead, that is contained in the section 1.3 above.
4.23. Inspect: To visually look at readily accessible systems and components safely, using normal operating controls, and accessing readily accessible panels and areas in accordance with these Standards of Practice.
Rationalize as you may, if I was on a jury and was explained these conflicts I would decide that describe includes a duty to inspect for defects and that 1.3 requires description and defect reporting.
The solution to this is to place the requirement for reporting in the definition of inspect and to delete describing any item that is not to be inspected.
Ben’s example contains none of what you are talking about.
We do not identify size, spacing, span, location or determine adequacy of foundation bolting, bracing, joists, joist spans or support systems because the AHJ who issued the initial occupancy permit has already approved it.
We do not report on the adequacy of any structural system or component because we are not structural engineers.
The industry standard cannot conflict with law.
I do not have the faintest idea how you came up with that comment. I suppose I did a bad job of stating my comment if it can be interpretted in such a way. Ben started this with
"Is there a conflict in the following - in relation to the InterNACHI Res. SOP:
2.4. Heating
II. The inspector is not required to:
B. inspect fuel tanks or underground or concealed fuel supply
systems.
2.6. Plumbing
I. The inspector shall:
H. describe any visible fuel storage systems; "
The definitions for inspect, describe and section 1.3 can be interpretted to be in conflict. That was my point. I am not sure how I infered joist spacing et al.
You didn’t. Ben did. That is what we were addressing.
As to your example of a possible conflict, I do not see one in your example either. I can describe a '64 Ford Mustang without commenting on the fact that it is misfiring, since my description did not require that I attempt to start it, operate it, or evaluate its condition. Apply this to a fuel storage tank or any other device.
Allow me take this back a bit. The only fuel tank I have ever seen in Texas is propane. I know most of this forum deals with oil tanks so I confess to being inexperienced in this matter.
My question is: Why don’t inspectors inspect fuel tanks? I understand the logic of not being able to look at buried or concealed tanks. Are openly visible tanks that risky to inspect for defects?
Perhaps this change?
2.4. Heating
II. The inspector is not required to:
B. inspect (fuel tanks or; delete) underground or concealed fuel supply
systems.
2.6. Plumbing
I. The inspector shall:
H. describe and inspect any visible fuel storage systems; "
2.4. Heating
II. The inspector is not required to:
B. inspect (fuel tanks or; delete) underground or concealed fuel supply
systems.
2.6. Plumbing
I. The inspector shall:
H. describe and inspect any visible fuel storage systems; "
I see no problem with this, either. Quite clear and simple to me.
Inspect and report on what you can see. Can you see the inside of a fuel tank? If it is empty, do you know if it is leaking? Is it possible for a crack too small to see to allow fuel to vaporize and escape? If your inspection were to “miss” any of these things and the tank was not in working condition because of an undetectable problem, should you be accountable for that? I like the SOP just the way it is.
I see no reason to describe something you won’t inspect. The objective is reporting defects. I agree with a prior post. If I was on a jury I would make you pay for a tank you described and did not report a defect on. The odds of that are remote enough to prove that by discussing this we don’t have a lot going on this Friday night. 
So, I describe the heating system as a natural gas powered forced air 1984 Carrier with flexible ducts…and, according to you, I am accountable for a cracked heat exchanger. I think that many would disagree with you.
and a lot of people disagree with juries.
Because to inspect a fuel tanks properly you need to Be experienced with the ASME B Codes at the very least. Or work for a fuel company.
Because to inspect fuel tanks properly you need to Be experienced with the ASME B Codes at the very least. Or work for a fuel company. Or have some experience with Pressure Vessels and perhaps some detailed welding background. If you do not have most of these qualifications, then you should not be pretending you do, and defer this part of the inspection to EXPERTS.
Some of the political/jesus threads make a lot more sense than this one.:shock: