TPR Valve reset

[Kevin Prellop]

Does the TPR valve need pressure from the tank to reset? I.E..if the tank is just sitting full of cold water and not operating, should the TPR valve still reset after tripping it, or does it need the pressure to close it completely?

[Scott Patterson]

Does the TPR valve need pressure from the tank to reset? I.E..if the tank is just sitting full of cold water and not operating, should the TPR valve still reset after tripping it, or does it need the pressure to close it completely?

As a home inspector you should never trip/test a TPR valve. They will almost always leak once tested, sometimes it will stop but most of the time the valve needs to be replaced.

If you want to test the TPR I recommend twirling the little handle around a few times. If the handle turns easily then the valve is not frozen and it should work. If the handle does not turn or turns with force then the valve is most likely frozen and needs to be replaced.

[Rick Cantrell]

Does the TPR valve need pressure from the tank to reset? I.E..if the tank is just sitting full of cold water and not operating, should the TPR valve still reset after tripping it, or does it need the pressure to close it completely?


No, there is no need for the WH to be pressurized for the TPR valve to re-seat.
If it does not re-seat it needs to be replaced.

[Eric Barker]

If you want to test the TPR I recommend twirling the little handle around a few times. If the handle turns easily then the valve is not frozen and it should work. If the handle does not turn or turns with force then the valve is most likely frozen and needs to be replaced.

Wow! If I heard that from someone else I'd say what a load of ........
Scott, I certainly don't want to question your depth of knowledge (which I have great respect for), but where did you get that one? :o Have I missed the boat on this method?

[Kevin Prellop]

I've heard, been trained, and participated with both ways. I usually use common sense on whether to test or not. Obviously, if it is an old WH, I see corrosion, the drain pipe runs through the attic, or if I can't even determine the termination point, then I don't test. I certainly see the consequences of testing them...much like shut-off valves. It just depends.

[Joe Suelter]

I have been trained to NOT operate the TPR valve. And common sense should prevail if you choose to.

If I hired you to inspect my home, and you chose to open that for a "test" and it didn't seat correctly, I'd expect you to repair it. After all, there wasn't a leak there before you showed up. (a TPR valve is only $30-50, and can be changed with relative ease). In my opinion, it would be the right thing to do unless it specifically states in your pre-inspection agreement that you are testing such device and state the possibility (and high likelyhood) of a leak.

Before some of you beat me up, I understand the necessity of testing it. I change mine every 2 years when I change my anode rod. I would consider educating the client on the need to have it tested (by a plumber with a new one in hand) at their convenience.

Just my 2 cents

[Nolan Kienitz]

Put the brakes on ... inspectors who are not inspecting in TEXAS!

The TREC SOP, that we are required to follow as part of maintaining our license states that we are "required" to operate/test the TPRV on water heaters.

There are exceptions that an inspector is allowed to follow to "not" test the TPRV, but he/she had best be extremely sure of them as TREC can levy fines against the HI for not doing what the SOP demands.

Now ...Kevin ... (I note by your license that you are a newer inspector and still building on your experience) ... your OP noted a W/H with 'cold water' and not operating ... that tells me you have other problems with the appliance that you should be noting in the report.

Back to testing the TPRV ... like the majority of HIs around the country I agree that testing such is likely not the wisest decision ... but when you have a mandated SOP to follow your options are not the best.

Now ... you can also review the manufacturer's documentation from Cash Acme and WATS about the TPRVs they make/sell. They state that "homeowners" are required to 'test' them annually and they go further to recommend that a licensed plumber should evaluate/review the TPRV for possible replacement once every three years.

My reports comment on what the manufacturer 'recommends' and I leave it at that.

We all know that each of us test the TPRVs on our W/H's in our homes annually ... ;);) ... and that we have our local friendly plumber out once very three years ... :eek:

[Joe Suelter]

I forgot about Texas. You boys play by some weird rules!

[Ron Hasil]

I would say if you are doing a plumbing inspection, you should test the T&P valve. Watts states it should be tested yearly to ensure proper operation. So if the home owner has not been testing it yearly and you come along and test it and it keeps leaking, it is not your responsibility to replace it, it is the home owners since this is an item that needs to be tested and replaced as needed. Here is a snap shot from Watts Spec sheet. Here is the link for those of you that like to read and print up the documents. http://media.wattswater.com/ES-10L-100XL.pdf

[Dom D'Agostino]

I would say if you are doing a plumbing inspection, you should test the T&P valve. Watts states it should be tested yearly to ensure proper operation. So if the home owner has not been testing it yearly and you come along and test it and it keeps leaking, it is not your responsibility to replace it,


How about the resulting water damage if the valve's outlet is plumbed to an interior location?

Since the inspector, as a trained professional, could reasonably believe that a failed valve could cause property damage, he shouldn't operate it without the owners permission after disclosing the risk (unless your State requires you to do so).

Dom.

[Ron Hasil]

As the watts page states if the valve fails turn off the water heater, meaning urn off the water and gas, or electricity to the heater. Tell the home owner that the T&P valve failed and needs replacing. Here in Illinois all our water heater T&P valve piping is piped in the interior of the building.

[Jerry Peck]

As a home inspector you should never trip/test a TPR valve. They will almost always leak once tested, sometimes it will stop but most of the time the valve needs to be replaced.

I have the opposite opinion of Scott: As a home inspector you should always trip/test a T&P relief valve. For the reason Scott gave for not testing them.

The key to successful testing of the T&P relief valve is to understand what you are feeling and to NOT force the T&P valve open, but to open if it opens easily. This can be done by testing your own T&P valve (you DO test it regularly, right?) and you will be able to feel when the valve is stuck (you replaced yours when it was stuck, right?). After that, if it does not fully reset, you write the T&P relief valve up as being in need of replacement, and if the T&P relief valve is stuck (and you did not force it open, naturally) you write that up as the T&P relief valve is stuck, and that it is a safety valve and safety valves MUST WORK EVERY TIME, and that 'unsticking' the valve is not what is needed, the valve needs to be 'replaced'.



If you want to test the TPR I recommend twirling the little handle around a few times. If the handle turns easily then the valve is not frozen and it should work. If the handle does not turn or turns with force then the valve is most likely frozen and needs to be replaced.

That handle typically just rotates inside the seal, spinning the handle around does not indicate the seal is not stuck. If the handle does not spin around, it is so stuck that the shaft which lifts the seal is also stuck.

Once you start testing T&P valves you will likely find that any valve older than a few years old is stuck and needs to be replaced.

[Joe Suelter]

To be honest, I've never given them much thought other than if the piping and valve placement was correct. And after reading all of this, I still won't! But, I think I will start educating customer's a little on their operation, and let them decide whether to test them or not, or just call a plumber. For me, just too much risk, and in this sue happy time we live in, I just don't feel that a $30 TPR valve is worth it.

For what it's worth, I usually write up all water heaters as possibly needing replaced within 5 years anyway unless I know they are brand new (less than 2 years old). This has been a very good post. Pretty informative, and definitely got me thinking.

[Mitchell Captain]

Any inspector that does not test the TPRV is doing his client a disservice unless of course his client is a home sale person.
Since doing home inspection many would not seat and was written as tprv needs replacing. Not a single call from the seller or a lawyer.

[Benjamin Thompson]

...a TPR valve is only $30-50...
Hey Joe, want to buy some tpr valves, I will sell you all you want for $30 each!

[Joe Suelter]

It's no disservice, it's common sense. I am not required to test it. And from here on out, I am leaving it up to the client as to whether I test it, knowing full well it probably will leak, and I am thinking seriously about having a separate "waiver" signed by the property owner should damage incur.

Let's use an example...I'd like to hear some thoughts. (Not Texas..sorry!). You test the TPR valve, and it sticks open...you quickly reach up and attempt to shut the water off, and that gate valve doesn't turn...now what? Shut it off at the main right? Sure, obviously. You write it up as defective, repair/replace yadda yadda....collect your check and go. The property owner comes home and finds the water shut off, has 3 kids to bath, etc.... Your name is now smeared with this guy, who will undoubtedly tell all his friends, who tell all their friends, who posts it on Facebook, tells his Realtor, on and on. For what? $80 for a plumber to come after the house is bought...or less if the homeowner does it himself? You could have saved yourself a lot of bad rep by making an educated guess on it's age (the TPR valve) and wrote it up as needing replaced/evaluated further.

Thoughts?

[Joe Suelter]

Hey Joe, want to buy some tpr valves, I will sell you all you want for $30 each!

LOL! I was being generous I know. I knew someone was going to catch me on that!

[Benjamin Thompson]

I sometimes "gingerly" test the tpr as Jerry suggests, not always, only if suspect. How many who think it should always be done also test all of the angle stops? Ever had one of those NOT leak when turned? I check those by gently trying to turn them. If they don't want to move, I don't force them. Same idea.
If you are going to routinely test tpr valves, I suggest carrying a few with you along with a good wrench. Oh, and don't forget the torch and solder!
Also, just a thought: The pressure it would take to rupture the tank will be much more than you could exert with your thumb on the lever. I would bet that no matter how crudded up the valve is, it will release before the tank would blow.

[John Kogel]

Reality - The common sense approach doesn't mean squat if you've caused a leak in a home that your client might not even buy. And if it is a vacant home, you could be talking thousands in water damage before the drip is discovered. Talk about a disservice. Flooding a home and ruining the deal for both parties is a disservice.

The test did not prove that the valve was defective. If it opened and water squirted out, it was not defective. But then a piece of rusty scale flowed out with the discharge and fouled the seal. You broke it by testing it.

My report clearly states that I don't test them. That is the homeowner's job, and the homeowner can deal with the leaks.

[Mitchell Captain]

Try reading that attached. See that it says must be tested once a year.

I think some of you oughta think of not what is required by some magical authority but what you would require if your daughter son mother father or even your inlaws was buying home.

"Oh son-in-law my water heater is leaking and I found a note from watts on the water heater that say test once a year. I sure my daughter married somebody that could read." (maybe not)

[John Kogel]

Try reading that attached. See that it says must be tested once a year.

1) The label doesn't say that a home inspector should test the valve. It instructs the home owner to do it once a year. Or should we be going back once a year to do that for them? :confused:.
2) It says to get a plumber to inspect it properly once every 3 years by removing it.
"Certain naturally occurring conditions may corrode the valve or its components over time, rendering the valve inoperative. Such conditions are not detectable unless the valve and its components are physically removed and inspected. Do not attempt to conduct this inspection on your own. Contact your plumbing contractor for a reinspection to assure continuing safety".
3) How do you know the thermostat function of the valve is working, unless you test that too, by raising the tank temperature to over 150 degrees F?

In my area, tanks rust from the inside because of all the chlorine they put in the water, which comes from a network of lakes. (And because the tanks are thin gauge steel.) So tanks and TPRV's are replaced every 11 years, on average. We all have to decide what we're comfortable with, and if plumbing is your bag, sure, carry valves and a wrench. :D

[Joe Suelter]

1)
3) How do you know the thermostat function of the valve is working, unless you test that too, by raising the tank temperature to over 150 degrees F?

We all have to decide what we're comfortable with, and if plumbing is your bag, sure, carry valves and a wrench. :D

Great point. Just because water comes out doesn't necessarily mean it is working properly.

It comes down to whatever works for your business plan. If your company can afford the added risk, by all means, continue doing what you do.

As for me, I'm taking a little from John and modifying my report, and will continue not operating them.

[Ken Schaumann]

John is right as many others also have stated. I find it hard to believe that any experienced inspector would say "Yes" to testing the TPRV. In my early years of inspecting I tried testing a couple. After one would not shut off and the resulting problems that followed, I made it a poilicy not to operate those ever again, (Plus it is clearly stated in my inspection agreement, my report and the SOP). Fortunatly the home owner was there and was pretty cool guy and shut the house down and made a trip down to the HD and made the repairs. Fortunatly the drain pipe was to the exterior and no damage was done to the owners personal property. Fortunatly no children were nearby the drain when that scalding hot water came out.
A clear explanation to the buyers why we do NOT test and that they DO test after they move in and even a follow up in our report is the safe and logical course. Other wise I hope you have good liability insurance or can run fast.

[Michael Avis]

I love the polemical debate on this topic.

I'm with Scott Patterson. I don't test them and wouldn't even if I were "required" to. Whomever is requiring this doesn't have the HI's back in court and certainly won't pay for personal or property damage. I also don't think this "requirement" would stand up to a legal challenge.

Based on this thread I am modifying how I handle this item... I will continue not to test them, explain why to my client and recommend that it be tested by a plumber who is equipped to handle repairs immediately if needed.

In medicine's Hippocratic Oath physicians are required to first "Do no Harm". That sort of applies here. In our case it would be "Don't do things which are likely to do harm"

We all know these damn things are touchy and I for one feel I am fulfilling my responsibility to my client by educating them on the topic.

[Jerry Peck]

Any inspector that does not test the TPRV is doing his client a disservice unless of course his client is a home sale person.
Since doing home inspection many would not seat and was written as tprv needs replacing. Not a single call from the seller or a lawyer.

Hey, Mitchell ... long time!

[Jerry Peck]

I sometimes "gingerly" test the tpr as Jerry suggests, not always, only if suspect. How many who think it should always be done also test all of the angle stops?

There is a BIG difference between angle stops and T&P relief valves ... the T&P relief valve is a SAFETY RELEASE VALVE and is required to work EVERY TIME, if an angle stop does not work, turn the water off at the house, replace the angle stop, then it works - if a T&P relief valve does not work when it needs to ... KABOOM! ... not a pretty sight.

I pointed out in my post above that this was a SAFETY valve and that makes all the difference in the world.

Regarding not having a T&P reset, have you ever inspected a house and had a sliding glass door come off it tracks? Or something equally difficult to correct happen? Yeah, CRAP HAPPENS, so do you make the choice to 'not test' something because crap happens? :rolleyes:

[Jerry Peck]

Great point. Just because water comes out doesn't necessarily mean it is working properly.

While that may be a great point to try to justify not testing them, you have completely missed the point of testing them ...

... from the link Mitchell posted (by the way, Watts used to say to test them every 6 months, now it is one year, but I digress from the point): (red text is mine for highlighting)


WARNING: Following installation, The valve lever MUST be operated AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR to ensure that the water-ways are clear. Certain naturally occurring mineral deposits may adhere to the valve, rendering it inoperative. When manually operating the lever, water will discharge and precautions must be taken to avoid contact with hot water and to avoid water damage. BEFORE operating lever, check to see that a discharge line is connected to this valve directing the flow of hot water from the valve to a proper place of disposal otherwise personal injury may result. If no water flows, valve is inoperative. TURN OFF THE WATER HEATER AND CALL A PLUMBER IMMEDIATELY. This device is designed for emergency safety relief and shall not be used as an operating control.

It isn't that you are saying that the valve operations properly, you did not test it for pressure or temperature relief, what you are saying is that the valve IS INOPERATIVE when it sticks and no water flows, and that is per Watts.

[Rick Cantrell]

The valve is operated, not tested.

[Mitchell Captain]

Hey, Mitchell ... long time!

I know, but for the last three years I've been very active. I hope all is well with you and the family.

Best Always

[Joe Suelter]

As I and others have said, it all comes down to your SOP requirements, your judgement, and your agreement. In other words, if it works for you, whether checking them or not, super! I choose not to. Some of you choose to. Some of you HAVE to. Neither party is right, neither party is wrong. Just boils down to what you as an inspector feels right about.

Great post.

[James Duffin]

Great post.

I agree...added a new water heater FYI....

[W. Craig McDougald]

Put the brakes on ... inspectors who are not inspecting in TEXAS!

The TREC SOP, that we are required to follow as part of maintaining our license states that we are "required" to operate/test the TPRV on water heaters.

There are exceptions that an inspector is allowed to follow to "not" test the TPRV, but he/she had best be extremely sure of them as TREC can levy fines against the HI for not doing what the SOP demands.

Regarding the Texas Real Estate Commission SOP, I quote:

(d) Specific limitations for water heaters. The inspector is not required to:
(1) verify the effectiveness of the temperature and pressure relief valve, discharge piping, or pan drain pipes;
(2) operate the temperature and pressure relief valve if the operation of the valve may, in the inspector's reasonable judgment, cause damage to persons or property; or
(3) determine the efficiency or adequacy of the unit.


I, too, inspect in Texas. Too many times I've tested and had a devil of a time getting them shut-off, so I "reasonably determine such action will jeopardize the dwelling". All too often there is something else wrong with the system (runs uphill, indeterminate ending, age/corrosion, ad infinita) That is reason enough for me to not open them most of the time, if ever.

[Jerry Peck]

I know, but for the last three years I've been very active. I hope all is well with you and the family.

Best Always


All is well here, hope the same there.

Sooo ... ;) ... I suppose you got your hair cut. :)

[W. Craig McDougald]

Also rumor has it this will be deleted in the next year's SPO revamp..........

[Jerry Peck]

I, too, inspect in Texas. Too many times I've tested and had a devil of a time getting them shut-off, so I "reasonably determine such action will jeopardize the dwelling". All too often there is something else wrong with the system (runs uphill, indeterminate ending, age/corrosion, ad infinita) That is reason enough for me to not open them most of the time, if ever.


"so I "reasonably determine such action will jeopardize the dwelling". All too often there is something else wrong with the system (runs uphill, indeterminate ending, age/corrosion, ad infinita) "

So, from your statement I take it that you write them up for repair ... right?

[W. Craig McDougald]

I mark them "Deficient", per TREC SOP, on the TREC mandated Report form. I may, depending on the nature/severity of the deficiency, recommend an appropriate further action be taken.

Bare in mind, neither party to the RE sale is required to do anything we find Deficient with the property, so a TPV with no drain line, no pan, on a gas heater sitting on a garage floor with a single-wall flue sticking up thru the attic in direct contact with a ceiling joist, may not be fixed by anyone, regardless of what my Report says. Real life scenario, I only hope the Buyer took steps after closing to keep the place from burning down.

[imported_John Smith]

Manually lifting a TPR valve only indicates it will open when the lever is lifted (assuming it does). It wont give any proof that the valve will lift at its specified set point. That is why they suggest inspection every 3 years. The reality is no one will ever disassemble and repair/replace parts and retest the valve. You would just replace it. Any longer than 3 years, you likely wouldn't get it out of the tank without destroying the valve/tank.
As an inspector, you want to make sure you are doing what is required and let clients know when an item is deficient or questionable. I do what Scott does, move the lever around to see if it will even turn. Then I will test the valve. Just be prepared to explain to the owners that the valve is now leaking and wont reset if you can get it to. I would rather do that than have any one possibly get hurt from an exploding water heater. The reality is explosions are very rare, but if you are the 1 in a million that it happens to, you dont really care about the statistics.

I cant imagine TREC ever deleting that requirement from the SOPs.

WATTS Website

ANNUAL OPERATION OF T&P RELIEF VALVES:

WARNING: Following installation, the valve lever MUST be operated AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR by the water heater owner to ensure that waterways are clear. Certain naturally occurring mineral deposits may adhere to the valve, blocking waterways, rendering it inoperative. When the lever is operated, hot water will discharge if the waterways are clear. PRECAUTIONS MUST BE TAKEN TO AVOID PERSONAL INJURY FROM CONTACT WITH HOT WATER AND TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE. Before operating lever, check to see that a discharge line is connected to this valve, directing the flow of hot water from the valve to a proper place of disposal. If no water flows when the lever is operated, replacement of the valve is required. TURN THE WATER HEATER “OFF” (see your water heater instruction manual) AND CALL A PLUMBER IMMEDIATELY.
REINSPECTION OF T&P RELIEF VALVES:

WARNING: Temperature and Pressure Relief Valves should be inspected AT LEAST ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS, and replaced, if necessary, by a licensed plumbing contractor or qualified service technician, to ensure that the product has not been affected by corrosive water conditions and to ensure that the valve and discharge line have not been altered or tampered with illegally. Certain naturally occurring conditions may corrode the valve or its components over time, rendering the valve inoperative. Such conditions can only be detected if the valve and its components are physically removed and inspected. Do not attempt to conduct an inspection on your own. Contact your plumbing contractor for a reinspection to assure continuing safety. FAILURE TO REINSPECT THIS VALVE AS DIRECTED COULD RESULT IN UNSAFE TEMPERATURE OR PRESSURE BUILD-UP WHICH CAN RESULT IN SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH AND/OR SEVERE PROPERTY DAMAGE.

[Jerry Peck]

I mark them "Deficient", per TREC SOP, on the TREC mandated Report form. I may, depending on the nature/severity of the deficiency, recommend an appropriate further action be taken.

Curious as to why you would not call for appropriate repairs given that you have marked them deficient?


Bare in mind, neither party to the RE sale is required to do anything we find Deficient with the property,

That is well understood, but that should not come into play for a home inspector to write something up and call for its replacement/repair/correction.

It is the home inspectors job to advise their clients of items such as that, and failure to do so would be, in my opinion, a failure to perform the job correctly.

If something is so deficient that the inspector hesitates to inspect/operate it, then that something is so deficient so as to have been determined by that inspector to be a potential hazard, and that determination now indicates that it is so deficient that it needs to be repaired/replaced/corrected.

Take an FPE or Zinsco panel as an example, the inspector cannot determine that it is hazardous to open the cover and then NOT call for that to be repaired/replaced/corrected - in this example the call should be for replacement.

[Ron Hasil]

~SNIP~. Any longer than 3 years, you likely wouldn't get it out of the tank without destroying the valve/tank.
~SNIP~.

As a plumber I will have to disagree. I have removed 1000's of T&P valves from tanks that where more than 3 years old. Lots of them the tanks have been over 10 years old, the valve just screws right out.

These units are like a thermostat in your car. They open at a preset temperature, and open at a preset pressure. Using the lever is to ensure that the valve has clear pathways and will open.

I had a place where they called me stating they had smoke coming out of all their commercial water closets. When I got there it was not smoke but steam. Someone felt it was a wise idea (it was not) to bypass a wiring block with a paper clip to make a 250K BTU 80 gallon water heater fire up. What they did not realize is they bypassed the thermostat, and was superheating the water. The T&P valve was never checked in the 20 years this tank was in service and it did not work as needed when the temperature and pressure got to much. Lucky for them the Sloan flush valve rubbers melted and allowed the steam to flow out of the water closets through the cold pipes. If that had not happened the heater would have ruptured and leveled that part of the building. With the new tank they have their tech open the valve once a month to make sure it is working properly.

[W. Craig McDougald]

Curious as to why you would not call for appropriate repairs given that you have marked them deficient?


Who said I didn't? You're leaving words out of my mouth. In the scenario I referred to, you can bet I informed the client, her agent, and the Gas Utility person there of the danger and need for repair before the heater was put in service.

My statement was I may make recommendation further action be taken, depending on the deficiency. I won't waste my client's time recommending what to do about a rusted dishwasher basket, but advising her on FPE panels will get some time, unless she's a licensed electrician.

[Jerry Peck]

I had a place where they called me stating they had smoke coming out of all their commercial water closets. When I got there it was not smoke but steam. Someone felt it was a wise idea (it was not) to bypass a wiring block with a paper clip to make a 250K BTU 80 gallon water heater fire up. What they did not realize is they bypassed the thermostat, and was superheating the water. The T&P valve was never checked in the 20 years this tank was in service and it did not work as needed when the temperature and pressure got to much. Lucky for them the Sloan flush valve rubbers melted and allowed the steam to flow out of the water closets through the cold pipes.

Just like it shows the steam going back into the cold water supply line in this old video from Watts: http://www.constructionlitigationconsultants.com/movies/Watts_Explosion_Danger_Lurks.wmv

[Ron Hasil]

Just like it shows the steam going back into the cold water supply line in this old video from Watts: http://www.constructionlitigationconsultants.com/movies/Watts_Explosion_Danger_Lurks.wmv
You can get that in DVD format from watts for free. I have dozen of them and give them to customers that need education.

[W. Craig McDougald]

Great video, Jerry. Thanks

[Ron Hasil]

Here is a link from watts. The Danger scalding lurks is a good one to read as well. Danger - Scalding Lurks! - Learn About - Watts (http://www.watts.com/pages/learnAbout/scaldingLurks.asp?catId=1159)

[Jerry Peck]

You can get that in DVD format from watts for free. I have dozen of them and give them to customers that need education.

Ron,

I have two of the VHS videos, which is how they made it available 20-25 years ago, and two of the DVDs, which is how (as you pointed out) they provided it now.

They were free back then and still are free.

[Rick Cantrell]

Ron,

I have two of the VHS videos, which is how they made it available 20-25 years ago, and two of the DVDs, which is how (as you pointed out) they provided it now.

They were free back then and still are free.

Do you still have them on 8 Track?:p

[Jerry Peck]

Do you still have them on 8 Track?:p

No, but ... :p ... I still have the original Edison cylinder version of mine they borrowed to record the "talky" sound on. :D

[Steven Turetsky]

No, but ... :p ... I still have the original Edison cylinder version of mine they borrowed to record the "talky" sound on. :D

Please don't tell me you were there.

Great thread!

[Scott Patterson]

Wow! If I heard that from someone else I'd say what a load of ........
Scott, I certainly don't want to question your depth of knowledge (which I have great respect for), but where did you get that one? :o Have I missed the boat on this method?

I'm not sure but I think it was Mike Casey from about 20 years ago. Next time you have a TPR valve in hand give it a try. You will see the gasket moving as you twirl the handle. I have no idea if it works under pressure, but I have found plenty over the years that would not move.

[Ken Schaumann]

Due to so some much response and different opinions on this post, I decided to experiment and try the TPRV test on an inspection yesterday. This was a five year old vacant house, drain tube to exterior, no one around. I very slowly pulled the lever until I heard and felt the water release and then let it shut off immediatly. For the next two hours until I left the inspection, the line dripped. Now, do I call out the dripping in my report or hope, between now and when the new owner does a walk thru, that the drip stops? If I do call it out that the line is dripping, it's because I caused it, doing something I shouldn't have done. If I don't call it out and it doesn't stop I get a nasty phone call. Tomorrow I may have to take the half hour drive back out there to see if it has stopped. Shouldn't have touched it.:mad:

[Steven Turetsky]

Due to so some much response and different opinions on this post, I decided to experiment and try the TPRV test on an inspection yesterday. This was a five year old vacant house, drain tube to exterior, no one around. I very slowly pulled the lever until I heard and felt the water release and then let it shut off immediatly. For the next two hours until I left the inspection, the line dripped. Now, do I call out the dripping in my report or hope, between now and when the new owner does a walk thru, that the drip stops? If I do call it out that the line is dripping, it's because I caused it, doing something I shouldn't have done. If I don't call it out and it doesn't stop I get a nasty phone call. Tomorrow I may have to take the half hour drive back out there to see if it has stopped. Shouldn't have touched it.:mad:

Tricky situation, I agree. But I would simply state that I tested the TPR, and it leaks (did not stop dripping for 2 hours). It is designed to be tested, and I don't think you caused it, I think you found it. It leaks because it is not seating properly.

Same as if you tested the kitchen sink, and it kept dripping. Luckily it is draining outside. You may want to inform the owner of the property, so they can get thier plumber to change it.

Next time, should you find yourself in a similar situation, try opening all the way, and letting go of the lever to reseat. Try it a few times if necessary. Sometimes it will reseat. Carry a spare in an emergency.

[Rick Cantrell]

As Steven said, open the relief valve all the way.
Most often they continue to leak is because of debris on the seating surface. Opening the valve all the way several times will most times clear the debris and the valve will then seat and stop the leak. Another thing you can try is to shut off the water at the WH then close the valve, now turn the water back on.

You should report the valve as leaking, and needs to be replaced.

[Scott Patterson]

For those of you that do test the TPR valve and it does leak afterwards, all you have to say is the TPR valve is leaking and it needs to be replaced. You don't have to say a word about you being the cause of it! ;)

[Steven Turetsky]

If I hired you to inspect my home, and you chose to open that for a "test" and it didn't seat correctly, I'd expect you to repair it. After all, there wasn't a leak there before you showed up. (a TPR valve is only $30-50, and can be changed with relative ease). In my opinion, it would be the right thing to do unless it specifically states in your pre-inspection agreement that you are testing such device and state the possibility (and high likelyhood) of a leak.
coach factory outlet store (http://www.buyfashiononline.net)Coach outlet (http://www.outlethandbagsforsale.com)CoCo Chanel (http://www.canyinxc.net)

If I inspected your home, and the TPR leaked after testing it, you could argue that I caused the leak... and I would probably replace the valve, only because I like to keep things "smooth."

My question to you is, what would you argue if I met you at another home you owned, and didn't test your TPR... and the tank blew up due to a faulty TPR... and possibly someone was badly hurt, or worse. What would you then argue?

If I flipped a light swith, and the bulb blew, would you expect me to replace the bulb?

If something fails when operated using normal controls, how can you blame the person that operates it?

A few weeks ago, when entering a commercial basement, one of the steps broke (a poor previous repair). Should I have repaired the step?

[John Kogel]

FYI, Mythbusters on a show I watched last night, while the BlueJays lost to Seattle, blew up a couple of water heaters for fun. The pressure in those tanks reached over 350 psi before they blew the bottoms out of the tanks. Does anyone here think 10 years of crud on a valve can withstand that kind of pressure? You would have to weld it shut, IMO.

[Joe Suelter]

If I inspected your home, and the TPR leaked after testing it, you could argue that I caused the leak... and I would probably replace the valve, only because I like to keep things "smooth."

My question to you is, what would you argue if I met you at another home you owned, and didn't test your TPR... and the tank blew up due to a faulty TPR... and possibly someone was badly hurt, or worse. What would you then argue?

If I flipped a light swith, and the bulb blew, would you expect me to replace the bulb?

If something fails when operated using normal controls, how can you blame the person that operates it?

A few weeks ago, when entering a commercial basement, one of the steps broke (a poor previous repair). Should I have repaired the step?

Hey Steve, this post was SPAM. I reported it earlier this morning.

[Joe Suelter]

As said lots of times before in this very post, just because water comes out, doesn't mean it is safe...it just means the water pathway is clear. Will it operate under safety conditions? Probably, but who knows... Every inspector will handle this scenario differently. If your company can assume the possible risk, great. If you feel better about the inspection because you saw water coming out, that's fine. If you are like me, and cannot afford the risk, and you write it up accordingly, that's fine too. Everyone should have the benefit of doing it their way.

Nobody is saying operating it is 100% wrong. It just comes with a little added risk, that's all.

[Steven Turetsky]

As said lots of times before in this very post, just because water comes out, doesn't mean it is safe...it just means the water pathway is clear. Will it operate under safety conditions? Probably, but who knows... Every inspector will handle this scenario differently. If your company can assume the possible risk, great. If you feel better about the inspection because you saw water coming out, that's fine. If you are like me, and cannot afford the risk, and you write it up accordingly, that's fine too. Everyone should have the benefit of doing it their way.

Nobody is saying operating it is 100% wrong. It just comes with a little added risk, that's all.


I agree with you.

[Kevin Prellop]

Wow, so many great responses, as usual!

Nolan...the water had been turned on earlier in the morning and the tank was filled...but the gas was off. I, in my infinite curiosity, decided to operate the valve, knowing exactly where the line terminated and feeling comfortable (but unsure) about the end result. I've always looked for "the" reason to indicate that I did not feel comfortable operating the valve. Other problems did exist with the WH, such as corrosion at the inlet/outlet connections, and more importantly, missing the piezzo igniter....so I thought, what the hell.

So, it did drip afterwards. I was wondering if pressure needed to be built up in the tank (i.e. heated water) to "push" back on the valve and re-seal it..thinking (hoping) once the gas was turned on, the dripping would stop.
FYI...the dripping did stop. Regardless, my report stated that due to the age of the unit, and the aforementioned problems, that it be evaluated by a QUALIFIED licensed plumber and was probably nearing the end of its useful life, in my opinion.

In the future, I will probably just not operate them anymore, explain why, and recommend the homeowner do it, explaining to them the risks involved. It's usually fairly easy to find a reason, albeit deficiency, not to operate the TPR valve, and even easier to explain to the client the risks involved in doing so. 9 times out of 10, the client will not want me to.

Thanks guys for all the valuable info!

[Jerry Peck]

In the future, I will probably just not operate them anymore, explain why, and recommend the homeowner do it, explaining to them the risks involved.

Kevin,

That's the part I don't understand ... *you* will not operate it because *you* are pretty convinced that it will leak when it should not, yet, instead of writing it up as needing to be replaced or have a plumber test it and verify it is good ... *you* will probably (yes, I did notice that you said "probably") just recommend the homeowner do it.

If by "homeowner" you mean the seller, the seller will tell your client that *you* should have tested it if *you* wanted it tested, that the homeowner is not going to do your job for your and test it.

If by "homeowner" you mean your client, you are now delaying addressing the valve and its replacement cost until *after* closing and then your client will only have two people to cover that cost: a) themselves; b) *you*. I suspect that if the valve fails to close as you suspect it will fail, your client will call you and say that you should have either tested it or written it up for replacement and, by the way, here is the bill I had to pay the plumber to replace the valve, and that I could have had the seller pay for that if only you had written it up.

I still don't understand what is so difficult about making a choice between: a) test it and write it up; b) don't test it because it will likely fail and write it up because it will likely fail. :confused:

[Michael Avis]

I don't get the ongoing debate here but respect the discourse nonetheless. TPR valves are touchy. They may re-seat after operating and they may not. As others have already pointed out, the ability of a TPR valve to pass water proves nothing. Will it perform to specs and relieve pressure build-up in the tank? We don't know and flipping that little lever does not in fact test this safety item for the parameters that matter.

I witnessed a car accident the other day where a woman rear-ended someone at about 35 mph. The offending car's air bag did not operate and the woman wound up with a badly cut lip when her face impacted the steering column. Had I been asked to "inspect" her car should I be responsible for her face by merely verifying presence of an airbag?

I choose not to operate TPR's because doing so does not verify that they will keep a hot water tank from blowing up. I also choose not to test them because I know they may not seal back up post-test and there will be potentially significant water leakage. Finally, I don't test them because if they fail to re-seat I am not equipped to fix them. Period.

I now tell my clients that these need to be checked by a plumber who is equipped to replace them if necessary.

To me this is a no-brainer.
1. I'm not testing things I'm not qualified to test (relief pressure operation)
2. I'm not testing things which I know statistically are likely not to seal back up.
3. I advise my clients that TPR valves need regular checking by someone who can fix/replace it if it fails to re-seat.

[Kevin Prellop]

Jerry, I understand what you're saying. I "probably" won't operate it again unless it is requested I do so by my client, after they have been informed about the problems that can arise should I do so. They are, in fact, who I owe duty to. For a buyer, that request is justified and I will fulfill their request. If it's the homeowner...I doubt they will want me to test it, having being educated of the risks. (but will informing the buyer just make them request that you test it, just so they can have a plumber come at the seller's expense?) These are the types of things I'm trying to learn from this forum...from the from the ones willing to educate their peers (A.D. Miller excluded...R.I.P. jerk).

From all I've read, it just seems to me that the likelihood of the valve failing once I test it is pretty good. Does that logic apply to water shutoff valves at all the fixtures? Sure, a client wants to know that they will work in the event they need to use them. But the fact of the matter is they are rarely (if ever) used, and the one time the over-zealous HI turns on that knob, he's probably just created a leak. But I'm not going to write the valves up as needing to be replaced, because I don't know that. I'm also not going to recommend a plumber be called, potentially for no reason, just because I would rather place the burden and liability on him. The client, in my opinion, just needs to be informed of the reasons and risks for performing such tests, why I won't take those risks, and if they are willing to pay a professional to "break the valves and replace them" then by all means let them do it...I'm not going to take on that liability.

You're suggesting to (a) test it, make it leak and write it up as in need of being replaced or (b) not test it and write it up as in need of being replaced, when I can't honestly say that, having not tested it. Is it just a scapegoat to pass liability? If it's the same conclusion either way, why even the discussion? And for that matter (and this is not sarcastic, an honest question)...what will the plumber do to test it? The same thing I did? Only he has one in hand to replace it with, along with the bill? It's every homeowner's responsibility to perform proper maintenance on their house..regardless of the cost or responsibilities involved. I'm simply making them aware of this responsibility, and potential risk. Truth be told, the TPR valve is designed to flip when something has gone awry, correct? So there really isn't any way to "truly" test it's competency...without plugging up the outlet, corrupting the thermostat, or what-have-you. So I have decided to make the professional decision to tell my client Why I will no longer test them, educate them on the need to "test" them as indicated by the owner's manual, and let the chips fall where they may.

But, as Nolan pointed out earlier, I am new and gaining experience, so any and all advice to guide me in the right direction is always appreciated. Sometimes even a kick in the ass. That is, after all, the purpose of forums like this, correct? (except to I believe, that in the end, I work in the best interest of my client, and as long as they are informed as to the process and limitations of a home inspection, and I perform them to the best of my knowledge and ability, then I have performed my service and satisfied my obligations.

with respect,
Kevin

[Kevin Prellop]

Well said, Mr. Avis. I feel that way, too. My curiosity got the best of me in this instance.

So my client (in this case: buyer) requests that I test it....what do I do? (I guess is my ultimate question I want answered..) If I've got an obligation to my client, yet don't want to suffer the consequences for my actions....(from homeowner or client) then I can simply state the facts, risks, and repercussions and be held harmless. Is that right?

[Benjamin Thompson]

Here's how I approach TPR valves and also angle stop valves. I put slight pressure on them. If you go to home depot you know how much pressure it takes to operate both. If I feel they will not operate with reasonable force I write them up as probably needing replacement. Let me tell you, it is much more expensive to replace a house full of angle stops than to replace a tpr valve.
Most valves that will operate easily will not leak when operated!

For TPR:
The temperature pressure relief valve on the water heater does not release easily using reasonable pressure. The valve was not "forced" as this usually results in leakage due to mineral buildup. I recommend having a plumber check this safety valve with replacement if needed.

Here's what I write up for angle stops: (gets included for most homes over 20 years old)
"Valves at the sink and toilet supply lines (known as angle stops) are corroded and do not turn freely. This is common in areas where these valves have not been operated in some time. If valves do not turn freely, they are not forced during the inspection as leakage often results. I suggest either replacing or freeing up angle stops so that they will be operational when they are needed. When freeing stuck valves, be prepared for leakage and possible replacement."

[Ian Page]

Doesn't making repairs by the Inspector - i.e. replacing a leaking TPR valve, which was caused duiring the inspection, fall afoul or ASHI, CREIA and other 'professional' COEs and some State business regulations? Unless of course you wait a year...(Being a little facetious here...;) )

[John Kogel]

Doesn't making repairs by the Inspector - i.e. replacing a leaking TPR valve, which was caused duiring the inspection, fall afoul or ASHI, CREIA and other 'professional' COEs and some State business regulations? Unless of course you wait a year...(Being a little facetious here...;) )Ask Ron. I think you'd need a licence to touch a wrench to that valve in many states, and especially in Chicago, you need to be in the union as well. Good luck out there and remember, clockwise to install, counter-clockwise to un-install. [:)]

[Jerry Peck]

You're suggesting to (a) test it, make it leak and write it up as in need of being replaced or (b) not test it and write it up as in need of being replaced, when I can't honestly say that, having not tested it.

Kevin,

You are close.

"You're suggesting to (a) test it, make it leak and write it up as in need of being replaced "

No, I am suggesting getting familiar with T&P valves so that you can tell by feel (it really is not that difficult to tell) which ones are already stuck (those have, obviously, already failed), and to be able to tell when it is not already stuck (not already failed) and to gently pull up on the lever, which should, without undue pressure, release water, and then when you release the handle and it re-seats it did not fail, but if it does not re-seat then it failed. That is different than your "test it, make it leak" as one is not "making" it leak, it either leaks or does not leak.

"You're suggesting to (b) not test it and write it up as in need of being replaced, when I can't honestly say that, having not tested it."

Again, not what I said. *YOU* said you "probably" would not test them *BECAUSE* "It's usually fairly easy to find a reason, albeit deficiency, not to operate the TPR valve" ... "a reason, albeit deficiency" ... and *BECAUSE* you already determined there was a deficiency (the reason you gave not to test it), then that same deficiency is what you write up and the reason to call for replacement.

However, your posts after that one are not as strongly worded that you would not test them *BECAUSE* of some perceived deficiency.

See, *IF* you perceive that there is a deficiency and that is the reason NOT to test, then you should write it up for that deficiency.

*IF*, however, you decide not to test for some reason other than a deficiency, then your position is defensible for also not writing it up. The reason may not be defensible in court, but the chances if ever having to defend that lack of action in court is minimal.

What it comes down is that one either: a) tests it and finds (which is different from "makes") a deficiency and then writes that up; b) one does not test it and thereby disclaims anything to do with it and then continues with that course of action; c) or one decides *not* to test it because of a perceived deficiency but then not writing it up for that perceived deficiency. Those are three distinctly different scenarios - I did a), I can understand b) even though I disagree with it, but I cannot understand doing c) - do you understand the differences between them?

[Rick Cantrell]

About 2-3 months ago I replaced my WH.

The label on the TPR valve reads: (italicsadded)
Annual operation of T&P relief valves.
... to ensure that waterways are clear.
...
You, are not testing the T&P, you are operating the valve to ensure that the valve opens and to see that the waterway is clear.
You are not testing anything.

The label also goes on to say that the valves should be replaced every 2-4 years (if needed).
The label describes that an "inspection" is removal of the valve and a physical examination for deposits and corrosion in the valve.

[Kevin Prellop]

Jerry, I understand.
Thanks.

[Ken Schaumann]

So my client (in this case: buyer) requests that I test it....what do I do?


Kevin, what I tell my clients if they ask me to do something that I normally do not do, such as operate T&Ps or gate valves or angle stops, I simply state: "As I explained in the beginning, on my Inspection Agreement "I do not do anything that may cause damage to the property". Stems on gate valves can break, angle stops can leak, TPRV's can drip/leak, all after operating them. My personal business decision is to not operate TPRV's, but I let the buyer know verbally and written that I recommend that they DO operate them once they are the owners and to have them also evalauted by a licensed plumber. These are recommendations, they can do what they wish. I have been doing it this way for years and it has never been an issue. Stick to your (minimum) SOP and your Inspection Agreement on this one, in my opinion.

Obviously some will disagree, but that's their priviledge.

[Jerry Peck]

The label on the TPR valve reads: (italicsadded)
Annual operation of T&P relief valves.
... to ensure that waterways are clear.
...
You, are not testing the T&P, you are operating the valve to ensure that the valve opens and to see that the waterway is clear.
You are not testing anything.

That is the same wording I referred to in the link provided in the earlier post, that one is simply making sure that water flows, and therefore one is "testing" it to make sure that water flows.

If you prefer, you could substitute the word "operate" in place of "testing" and you would get the same meaning ... BOTH of the same meanings because you are "not" operating the valve at its safety release ratings unless you: a) operate it at 150 psi to see if it "operates"; b) operate it at 210 degrees F to see if it "operates".

So, the choice is yours: a) "testing"; or b) "operate", just keep in mind that EITHER can be used to mean what you are not trying to say.

[Rick Cantrell]

You should inform Watts they need to change there wording. ;)
Oh, and Webster
and drug manufactures (Do not operate machinery while taking this drug)

[Jerry Peck]

You should inform Watts they need to change there wording. ;)
Oh, and Webster

Look up the Synonyms of "operate", one of them is "work", then look up "work" as a verb (hey, don't blame me, *you* brought up about changing the wording and Webster :p ):

7 a : to carry on an operation or perform a job through, at, in, or along <the peddler worked the corner> <a sportscaster hired to work the game>

You "operated" it and saw that it carried out its intended function, which is to (read the tag for the parameters for "operation" - one will be that it will "operate" at 150 psi, and the other will be that it will "operate" at 210 degrees F ... sooo ... do you still say you "operate" it? :p

[Rick Cantrell]

(read the tag for the parameters for "operation" - one will be that it will "operate" at 150 psi, and the other will be that it will "operate" at 210 degrees F ... sooo ... do you still say you "operate" it?

I have read the tag and the tag I have says nothing about 150 psi or 210 degrees or anything even remotely like that.

[Jerry Peck]

I have read the tag and the tag I have says nothing about 150 psi or 210 degrees or anything even remotely like that.

It is required to be marked with the temperature setting and the pressure setting.

See the metal tag hanging from the valves in this http://media.wattswater.com/ES-10L-100XL.pdf ? I have seen a few which had round metal disc tags on top of the valve around the valve stem and under the trip lever, but properly 99% will have the metal tag.

That metal tag will tell you the temperature setting, the pressure setting, the standard to which it is listed, and other information.

[Rick Cantrell]

Yes, the round metal tag.
There is also a yellow plastic tag
It also says "DO NOT REMOVE", I was not wearing my glasses when I pulled it off to read it.
Anyhow the yellow plastic tag is what I have described.

[Scott Cook]

There is no excuse for not testing a T&P relief valve, anymore than for not testing any other critical safety device such as a smoke alarm. As a State Maintenance Foreman, I can assure you that ALL manufacturers require it, along with most code authorities. We had over 500 relief valves at just one University, and we tested and logged each one monthly. The ASME code requires testing monthly for low pressure boilers, such as in residences, but there is no reason to view a water heater as a safer device, especially with the recalls on millions of Robertshaw water heater gas valves. The codes are only secondary to the manufacturer's requirements, if there is a conflict, the AHJ can decide. The valve is opened for 10 seconds (recommended) to ensure the valve disc or plug is not frozen (corroded) to the seat, and to flush out any sediment that has collected. It is required to be tested because this is a very common cause of valve failure. It is immaterial if the test is going to cost the owner money for a replacement, inspections are not neglected in order to save money. I have lifted the arm on many 6"-8" valves only to have them start leaking. Some cost over $20,000 new, and 2-3 thousand to rebuild. I never apologized once, for doing my job. (Although I did have to listen to some adminsitrators and building managers rant and rave on occasion).

[Scott Cook]

Also, I might add: If State or local codes defeat the Manufacturers' Recommendations for the proper testing of a safety device, you will still lose in the event of an explosion. The only difference is that you will have the State's (AHJ) attorneys in the courtroom with you trying to blame you for not "using better judgement" in order to limit the amount of liability they are going to have to pay. You can probably get off with 10% of the liability and legal fees when all is said and done. Not to worry, you insurance carrier will cover it, and I'm sure they won't increase your premiums the next cycle, NOT.

[brent lerwill]

Any state, or standard that requires an HI to operate a tprv, should accept the responsibility for the cost of replacing it and repairing any resultant damages. If they are not willing to do this, they need to change their stupid rule.

[Eric Shuman]

TX inspectors (I am one), FWIW, it is my opinion that you had better test the TPR valve per TX SOP. I do not believe that since experience alone shows that these often continue to drip after testing it is reasonable judgement that it can cause damage to persons or property and should not be tested.

Now, if you check the drain pipe for obvious signs of leakage and you find it, or, if you check the TPR drain pipe termimation and it is terminating in an unsafe way or in an area that it will cause damage (both of which you should do before testing) or if you can't find the termination point, then I would consider that to be reasonable judgement that it should not be tested. Otherwise, not testing the TPR may result in fines, reprimands or both by TREC (as Nolan said earlier). Not to mention a faulty valve causing and expolosion later.

I always test them unless there is some sign of an issue. Yes, they often drip and sometime will not close, although a light tap with the butt end of a screwdriver directly on the valve pin will often reseat the valve on a slight drip. If they do drip or stay open, write it up, it's as simple as that. If you don't test it for good reason, write up why. I have tested thousands and I have never had a complaint or had to replace a TPR valve (knock on wood), even when they fail

[brent lerwill]

This is my standard comment in my reports on ALL tpr valves:...
"Not Inspected: The TPR valve was not tested because there is a probability that it will not re-seal due to mineral deposits. These valves should be activated at least annually for safe operation. It is recommended to test it when this house is occupied."
---------------------------------------------
Many may not re-seal and will leak after testing, meaning that you might cause water damage or have to go buy an new valve and put it on, or probably hire a plumber to do it.
Note: I do not call it "Acceptable". I call it "Not inspected"
It is just as important to state what we DO NOT INSPECT (and why), as what we do inspect. I definitely note that it is in place, or not and if there is a properly installed drain tube and where it drains to.

As far as the "twirling" thing, I have never done that, but suppose it might be some indicator of functionality, or not.?? Probably couldn't hurt. I would have to ask a plumber just how meaningful this is.? Either way, I would still make the same comments as above.

[Michael Thomas]

I list the various valves I do not test (you may be a surprised how many there are, once you start to list them), and recommend that the seller or their agent demonstrate proper operation prior to the expiration of inspection contingency.

[Ken Schaumann]

I did a quick survey of all the responses to the question, which sort of spun off of Kevin's first post, on whether a HOME INSPECTOR should or should not, test, operate, open, however you want to say it, the TPRV during a typical home inspection. As best as I could figure approximatly 12 said they do NOT, and approximatly 4 said they DO, with a couple of fence sitters in there as well.
So, what is the answer, test or no test? Follow the SOP's? (Another can of worms). Inspectors will probably never be united on this. It comes down to a personal business decision.