Why us this a defect?

I’'m taking the course on fireplace and chimneys and this came up. Too much sealant on the cricket at the valley and ridge. Why is too much sealant a defect here?
Thanks for the help!

https://education.nachi.org/show.php?element_id=5351&course_id=153

why is this a defect

It’s a defect because the sealant should not have been necessary to begin with if it had been done right. Since there is no evidence of flashing visible it is apparent that the sealant is there to attempt any leakage between the fireplace chimney and the cricket.
The cricket may have been overlaid on the finished roof so the sealant in the cut valley was to prevent water from entering underneath.
Requires repairs.

7 Likes

Yep! What Marcel says. And welcome to the forums Mike. You’ll learn a lot here.

What about this, brand new roof?

Thank you!

Defect?
Because we shouldn’t see the sealant?


Stephen, would you write it up?

Probably, just to cover my ass. But I doubt it’s ever gonna be a problem.

1 Like

That’s what makes the call difficult.

I would not write that up the plumbing vents. The flashing appears to have been installed correctly. Sealant may be an over abundance of caution.

However, the chimney has no visible flashing. Sealant is an inadequate substitution. Sealant in the valley is an indicator of a repair, likely due to leaking. I consider this a temporary fix.

3 Likes

This assumption is a good assumption. However, if I didn’t tell you the roof was brand new, how would you know it was not an attempt to repair a possible leak? you would not without an invasive inspection. I can just as easily argue that the flashing at the chimney is behind the stucco and whoever applied some tar in the valley simply did so out of abundance of caution, especially if the roof was brand new. Clearly, whoever applied the flashing over the vent boot was clueless, unless there was in fact a leak.

I would write it up 100% because I have no idea (other than an educated guess) as to why it’s there. And if it is there to stop a leak, it will start leaking again as soon as the tar cracks.

2 Likes

Your not wrong. It is a rabbit hole.

On the boots, I can see the flashing and the flashing looks proper. The shingles appear to be properly woven in.

Conversely, on the chimney, I cannot see the flashing and the sealant was only applied to one side.

We can report what we see and give the client some guidance. I personally would not send a roofing contractor to the vents unless I had some other concerns such as evidence of current or historical leaking. But that does not dismiss the validity of your concern. It is an opinion worthy of discussion.

3 Likes

2 Likes

Marcel nailed it as far as the cricket goes. I personally would call out the vent flashing as an improper install if for no other reason than the CYA aspect. Since you were not there when it was put together, you really don’t know the who what why etc just by looking at it. The vent could have been done that way intentionally by a novice, who knows. CYA, CYA, CYA…

You’re right Michael, the standard Oatey aluminum pipe flashing should be sealant-free from the boot if installed correctly. They are 14-1/2" long, so there is no need to have sealant and can damage the boot or hold water where the sealant cracks.
Obviously done by an amateur. Calling it out is a defect in the installation.
So, one could go as far as saying “The roof pipe flashing was not installed per Manufactures installations.” If one wants to get technical about it.

https://www.oatey.com/products/oatey-aluminum-nocalk-roof-flashingsstandard-base--467363889?filter=

  • Rustproof stamped aluminum base allows for easy shaping of flashing
  • Rated 180°F continuous heat and approved for Type B installations
  • Metal base for a pitch from 0-40° or up to 10/12 roof
  • Self-sealing collar slides over pipe and requires no caulking
  • Collar will not fade
  • Do not use petroleum-based products or paint on flashing collar
3 Likes

There are many non-petroleum based roof products. I cannot identify the vent manufacturer from the photo.

I am just playing devils advocate. The sealant looks like crap. But I have yet to see a real material defect that warrants a client to call in a roofer. Until now.

Nails should be under shingles only. That is a defect.
raw_12_RoofFlashings_InstructionSheet_072720.pdf (371.2 KB)

Added Sealants, mastic, caulking, bitumen plastic, indicates the job was not preformed properly.
Valleys do not require visible sealants. The chimney headwall flashing and counter flashing should be visible.
In your image, poor shingles chimney clearance.

Let me put it to you this way. On a properly installed shingle roof you do not see sealants. The underside of the shingles is used to apply sealants to. Everything is hidden.

Sealants are used by roofers as a means to tract down a suspect leak as in the cricket.

Look at the sellers declaration or ask the agent was there ever a leak at the chimney.

1 Like

If you believe the clueless roofer went out of his way to find, and pay a premium for, a tar-looking non-petroleum roofing cement that he then smeared all over like a :poop: flinging :monkey:, you’ve never been around roofing jobs and or you work for the realtors writing soft reports and or just trolling. Pick one :smiley:

Ease up Simon, no need to get insulting.

I’m none of the above. I even stated that I was playing a bit of devils advocate.

  1. I am unable to identify the boot manufacturer.
  2. I am unable to confirm the “petroleum based product”
  3. I am able to confirm sloppy craftsmanship
  4. I am unable to confirm if this sloppy craftmanship is a repair or if it will lead to further problems.

Here is your out of the way hard to find “non-petroleum” sealant.

1 Like