Thread: TPR Valve reset

Originally Posted by 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... )

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. []

Originally Posted by Kevin Prellop

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?

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.

Jerry, I understand.
Thanks.

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.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

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.

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

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

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 ):

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?

(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.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.