Thread: Testing a shower pan

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

James
The difference is, manufactures and industry standards recognize and even recommend this procedure as a method to test shower pans for leaks. Do you know of anyone that recommends the test you are comparing it to?

Do you have any industry standards that say to test the pan this way after the job is compete?

For those who think of flood testing a shower pan as some technically exhaustive and technically challenging action and try to equate it with load testing a 200 amp main breaker ...

... I guess you must also feel that using a ladder to access a roof is some technically exhaustive and technically challenging action, that equates to hanging from a harness under a helicopter and flying in to do a roof inspection ...

James
If you test shower pans or not, it makes no difference to me. I am only providing information to those that may wish to test them.

Long ago (2003) article from the ASHI Reporter, outlines numerous steps to be taken (investigations, verifications and "tests") PRIOR to flooding a FINISHED shower floor (near end of article "Beyond the Scope, Pinpointing a leak" section).

This section was NOT written for HI by an HI, but by a tradesman (Plumber). The "tests" and specifications you've been referring to are for an unfinished or filled (safe) shower pan, NOT a finished tile or otherwise shower floor, shower base, etc..


Inspecting Tiled Showers and Shower Pans | ASHI Reporter


I have yet to have seen any authoritative application of the unfinished flood leak test applied to the entirety of a finished shower floor.

Please provide the promised authorities (promised in the earlier thread from last year).

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Long ago (2003) article from the ASHI Reporter, outlines numerous steps to be taken (investigations, verifications and "tests") PRIOR to flooding a FINISHED shower floor (near end of article "Beyond the Scope, Pinpointing a leak" section).

This section was NOT written for HI by an HI, but by a tradesman (Plumber). The "tests" and specifications you've been referring to are for an unfinished or filled (safe) shower pan, NOT a finished tile or otherwise shower floor, shower base, etc..


Inspecting Tiled Showers and Shower Pans | ASHI Reporter


I have yet to have seen any authoritative application of the unfinished flood leak test applied to the entirety of a finished shower floor.

Please provide the promised authorities (promised in the earlier thread from last year).

Always good info as usual Mr W

But in saying that

"Unfinished flood test" The idea of that test is to show it does not leak before they go to the trouble of tiling and a complete finish down to the grout

So they dont have to tare it apart and start over again when the clients move into their new home and they discover ....... the liner leaks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

So, why do they do a flood test before they put the bed in and tile and grout and finish up the walls? Because the liner is suppose to hold water incase the tiles crack, grout chips out over time, the house settles and a crack runs across the hard surfaces and water gets down into the bed and on to the liner.

No SOPs that say this must be done. No industry standards saying that this is the way to test.

You just gave us the darn industry standards to check for a leak in liner. That is the standard. That is how you check for a leak. That is way they check it that way bfore the tile work gets done.

Please stop with these excuses as to not test it and there is no standards and it is not suppose to be flooded to check for a leak.

Checking for a leak or not, at this time, is up to the Inspector. Checking for it is done in one way, by fillung it a bit and seeing if you lose water.

As far as the folks saying that the liner should not in old or new showers go over the curb. Darn folks. The shower door, threshold, sweep keeps water from the shower from running, splashing out over the threshold so in fact the threshold is soaked all the time. This is the absolute best point for a leak and when you pull the showers apart the first thing you see saturated is the double 2x4 of the threshold. Of course you cannot and won't block the curb so you can have an inch of water sitting on it for a while but you can and should have it sitting inside the shower for a while.

It is the only way to check for a leak.

Again, inspect for it or not at ones own discretion. But if you are one that inspects the liners/pans for leaks then you MUST "flood" it out as in fill it up short of the curb and let it sit. You are not doing anything contrary to industry standards. Those are the industry standards. You are not causing it to leak. If it leaks then there already was one.

All my life as a young man, even a teen, going to job sites I would see the liner/pan filled with water and sitting there for the building inspectors inspection!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They have never done it different so I guess that is the way to do it no matter how many writings or publications or SOPs you want to read or from what year.

Because that is the way you check for leaks. If you fill it up before the tile and it does not leak then I guess the reason they do it is so it won't leak all over the home afterward if it does get filled/flooded ..... yeah think!

Dance all you want

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

As far as the folks saying that the liner should not in old or new showers go over the curb. Darn folks. The shower door, threshold, sweep keeps water from the shower from running, splashing out over the threshold so in fact the threshold is soaked all the time. This is the absolute best point for a leak and when you pull the showers apart the first thing you see saturated is the double 2x4 of the threshold.

A properly built shower pan does not have 2x4's at the threshold!

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

Since we were on the topic of shower pans and liability
I thought it better to start a new thread



I feel the most effective way to reduce liability is through education, and training in procedures.
I contacted Bill Myers (not his real name) by phone a couple months ago. I was interested in the procedure he used for testing, and how if any, he has changed his procedures.

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...-disaster.html
Post #18 & #19 have links to various sites detailing the procedure for testing of the shower pan.


Below is a form I use to inform the HO and purchaser about testing the shower pan

Request and Authorization to test Shower Pan


Notice to purchaser and homeowner.
A standard test of the shower has been or will be performed.
The standard test is very much like normal use of the shower.
Sometimes the normal activity of using the shower may not reveal a defect in a shower pan.
Therefore a Shower pan test is recommend to be performed.
Before consenting to the shower pan test you need to understand
The test does not create a leak;
However the test may expose an existing defect that will allow water to leak.
If a defect exists, water can leak causing substantial damage.
Some defects and leaks may not be readily observable or detectable.


The shower pan test consist of:
#1 Removing the shower drain cover plate
#2 Inserting the appropriate plug into the drain of the shower to stop water from draining
#3 Filling the shower pan to within ½” of the shower curb height
#4 Allowing water to remain in the shower pan 4 hours or longer
#5 After the allotted time, remove the drain plug, and observe water drainage
#6 Observe for water that has leaked around the shower, and if practical under the shower
#7 Reinstall shower drain cover
#8 Report observations and make recommendations.

I understand and agree to; the limitations, and accept the risk involved.

Address: __________________________________________________ _____________________


Property owner or agent: __________________________________________________ ________

Date: ___________________________________________


Prospective purchaser or agent: __________________________________________________ ___

Date: ___________________________________________

I do that but verbally. Unless its a bank. Glad you moved this thread...i wish you would have let me know sooner...
I found 4 pans this week out of 5. My tests last the entire inspection of 3-4 hours. But most leak in the first 15 minutes. Like this from today.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

Thanks Gunnar

But I hope you mean "Thread" not "threat"

Rick,

I would have meant thread. That is, if I could type.

Like many threads this has brought out that there many methods in what and how a home is inspected. The person doing the inspection will set their own limits on method unless specified by their licensing law SOP. So few things are etched in stone. Which then leaves things open for a mater of interpretation. The decision on the extent that any SOP is exceeded is a very personal mater and one that will be argued till the end of time. Many determine methodology by first determining their comfort level of personal liability for their actions. Thus we have those that will not fill the shower pan with water and just run the shower. Others will test to some limit of expectation. How we rationalize/justify our methodology of testing ultimately boils down to being confronted with a law suite and the deffence for those actions taken.

Responsibility was the genesis for this thread.
Methodology of testing was the conduit of inquiry.

It is always interesting how far a field things get during the discussions. Also, how some seem to take a different view as a threat rather than a learning opportunity.

Marc,
Have you ever had an uneasy feeling that a verbal discussion details will be altered or forgotten when there is a negative outcome? Thus leaving you exposed for liability for repairs.

Benjamin,
Your statement: "....There's really not much reason for the liner to extend above the curb. ..." , is answered by normal methods of construction. Why extend above threshold? Because it is far easier to extend it than worry about it not being high enough on completion.

Benjamin,
How have you built your thresholds if "...A properly built shower pan does not have 2x4's at the threshold! " ? Just curious. Though off topic a bit.

Questions for the group:

Does any one have a definitive expert authority (non-disputable in court) that specifically states methodology for testing a standing shower? In addition, but separately the methodology for testing a shower pan?

Taking the actual shower pan testing a step further, what is your methodology for testing a curbles shower pan ?

Originally Posted by Benjamin Thompson

A properly built shower pan does not have 2x4's at the threshold!

Why?

By what standard?

What code or installation instructions state not to use 2x4s?
(Look at any installation instructions and you will see 2x4s used for that purpose.)

Now, if instead of saying "A properly built" you had said 'A better built' ... then I would agree with you as a 'better built' shower pan will have a concrete curb/threshold, either precast or cast in place.

But a "properly built" shower pan is doing what the installation instructions show or 'better'.

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

Like many threads this has brought out that there many methods in what and how a home is inspected. The person doing the inspection will set their own limits on method unless specified by their licensing law SOP. So few things are etched in stone. Which then leaves things open for a mater of interpretation. The decision on the extent that any SOP is exceeded is a very personal mater and one that will be argued till the end of time. Many determine methodology by first determining their comfort level of personal liability for their actions. Thus we have those that will not fill the shower pan with water and just run the shower. Others will test to some limit of expectation. How we rationalize/justify our methodology of testing ultimately boils down to being confronted with a law suite and the deffence for those actions taken.

Responsibility was the genesis for this thread.
Methodology of testing was the conduit of inquiry.

It is always interesting how far a field things get during the discussions. Also, how some seem to take a different view as a threat rather than a learning opportunity.

Marc,
Have you ever had an uneasy feeling that a verbal discussion details will be altered or forgotten when there is a negative outcome? Thus leaving you exposed for liability for repairs.

Benjamin,
Your statement: "....There's really not much reason for the liner to extend above the curb. ..." , is answered by normal methods of construction. Why extend above threshold? Because it is far easier to extend it than worry about it not being high enough on completion.

Benjamin,
How have you built your thresholds if "...A properly built shower pan does not have 2x4's at the threshold! " ? Just curious. Though off topic a bit.

Questions for the group:

Does any one have a definitive expert authority (non-disputable in court) that specifically states methodology for testing a standing shower? In addition, but separately the methodology for testing a shower pan?

Taking the actual shower pan testing a step further, what is your methodology for testing a curbles shower pan ?

No, I actually dont inspect a lot of occupied houses as weird as that sounds. But it is a weird market. Of the occupied houses I inspect, few pans have leaked...at least not this week.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Why?

By what standard?

What code or installation instructions state not to use 2x4s?
(Look at any installation instructions and you will see 2x4s used for that purpose.)

Now, if instead of saying "A properly built" you had said 'A better built' ... then I would agree with you as a 'better built' shower pan will have a concrete curb/threshold, either precast or cast in place.

But a "properly built" shower pan is doing what the installation instructions show or 'better'.

Out here, the mop guys will soild block the perimeter of the pan and lay 2x4's on thier side at the thresh.

"Do you have any industry standards that say to test the pan this way after the job is compete?"


"I have yet to have seen any authoritative application of the unfinished flood leak test applied to the entirety of a finished shower floor."

Thank you Mr Watson for providing us with this link

Inspecting Tiled Showers and Shower Pans | ASHI Reporter
Testing
Experienced inspectors know to cover the shower strainer and add water to check the integrity of the shower pan. I would encourage inspectors to fill the shower to approximately 1 to 1 1/2 inches below the door threshold. Do this early into the home inspection, so the water has ample time to make its escape.

Final step
The final step in the test procedure is to reinstall the test-plug and fill the shower base to about an inch or so below the threshold.

That is not an industry standard....this is Kenny Hart's opinion. Some good info though. That roofing nail in the corner of the pan where the PVC is folded shows why you should not fill a pan to the top of the curb.

In reading about this subject I do agree with the method some AHJ use which is to fill the pan up to the top of the slope in the floor which is about where the floor meets the curb. This allows you to quickly test the pan and drain under normal operating conditions.

Originally Posted by James Duffin

That is not an industry standard....this is Kenny Hart's opinion. Some good info though. That roofing nail in the corner of the pan where the PVC is folded shows why you should not fill a pan to the top of the curb.

In reading about this subject I do agree with the method some AHJ use which is to fill the pan up to the top of the slope in the floor which is about where the floor meets the curb. This allows you to quickly test the pan and drain under normal operating conditions.

It was published by ASHI
You are saying that ASHI is not an industry standard

Originally Posted by James Duffin

That is not an industry standard....this is Kenny Hart's opinion. Some good info though. That roofing nail in the corner of the pan where the PVC is folded shows why you should not fill a pan to the top of the curb.

You are ass-u-ming that nail is below the top of the curb.

It would be best to presume that the nail is above the top of the curb as no nails, screws, cuts, etc., are allowed below 2" above the top of the curb. Even where the shower pan material is cut to wrap over the top of the curb and the sides around the wall above the curb, that open cut area is to be sealed - this can be done by gluing pieces in place, however, the major shower pan manufacturers have preformed corner dams available which are just glued into that corner and avoid the bulky material build-up caused when one tries to glue multiple pieces there to seal it up.

Originally Posted by James Duffin

If someone will fill up a shower with water they will most likely jump out the high limit on a water heater to test the relief valve and plug in thirty five 1500 watt heaters to test the 200 amp main breaker. Why stop with just the shower pan leaking and making a mess. Let's see if we can blow the house up or burn it down during the inspection. That is what good inspector would do....right?

James, I have been reading all these posts and I understand and agree with what you are saying. The SOP on my CREIA Inspection Agreement plainly states in Part III, A.12: The Following are EXCLUDED from a real estate inspection... Water testing any building, system, or component or determine leakage in shower pans, etc.
So I assume that if we DO the shower pan test there is liability involved so we better be charging an extra for it, just as we would charge extra for inspecting a pool, spa, and so on. If there is no visible evidence of leakage why test it (to try and make it leak)? Why do it if we don't have to, unless there is evidence or a suspicion of leaks and then WE ARE CHARGING EXTRA FOR IT. If the buyer wants to test the pan, then sign the agreement and the waivers etc and get the extra $$. After all we are in business to make money. I don't think anyone on this forum is doing inspections just for the fun or the practice.

Originally Posted by Ken Schaumann

James, I have been reading all these posts and I understand and agree with what you are saying. The SOP on my CREIA Inspection Agreement plainly states in Part III, A.12: The Following are EXCLUDED from a real estate inspection... Water testing any building, system, or component or determine leakage in shower pans, etc.
So I assume that if we DO the shower pan test there is liability involved so we better be charging an extra for it, just as we would charge extra for inspecting a pool, spa, and so on. If there is no visible evidence of leakage why test it (to try and make it leak)? Why do it if we don't have to, unless there is evidence or a suspicion of leaks and then WE ARE CHARGING EXTRA FOR IT. If the buyer wants to test the pan, then sign the agreement and the waivers etc and get the extra $$. After all we are in business to make money. I don't think anyone on this forum is doing inspections just for the fun or the practice.

I found 4 pans out of 5 that were bad last week alone. Not one of them showed any evidence of damage prior to the test. Most people except maybe your teenager, wont take a shower longer than 10 minutes. The test floods the pan for 3 hours, at least in my inspection. Probably why I find so may busted pans. I have no problems walking on tile roofs shower pans or other restrictions / limitations or whatever set by ASHI, creia, Nachi, nahi or any other org. But thats me, I'm willing to take those chances.

Originally Posted by James Duffin

That is not an industry standard....this is Kenny Hart's opinion. Some good info though. That roofing nail in the corner of the pan where the PVC is folded shows why you should not fill a pan to the top of the curb.

In reading about this subject I do agree with the method some AHJ use which is to fill the pan up to the top of the slope in the floor which is about where the floor meets the curb. This allows you to quickly test the pan and drain under normal operating conditions.

It also sounds as if the author considers this type of shower pan testing to be intrusive:

I believe home inspectors who already perform other types of intrusive investigations could certainly handle this procedure, which can be used to help locate leaks on tiled lined stalls and all other types of showers.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

It was published by ASHI
You are saying that ASHI is not an industry standard

ASHI always publishes articles which are not industry standards, but only the opinions of the authors. ASHI does not create industry standards.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

ASHI always publishes articles which are not industry standards, but only the opinions of the authors. ASHI does not create industry standards.

Hey Ken I have a question. Is your state a licensing state for HI's? If so, does you state dictate what HI's can and cannot do? Just wondering..

Originally Posted by Marc M

I found 4 pans out of 5 that were bad last week alone. Not one of them showed any evidence of damage prior to the test. Most people except maybe your teenager, will take a shower longer than 10 minutes. The test floods the pan for 3 hours, at least in my inspection. Probably why I find so may busted pans. I have no problems walking on tile roofs shower pans or other restrictions / limitations or whatever set by ASHI, creia, Nachi, nahi or any other org. But thats me, I'm willing to take those chances.

Well perhaps this will start a whole nuther topic.

I have no problem going the extra mile, and I will walk any roof that can be accessed safely, but I don't walk tile roofs. Besides it being extremely easy to break tiles. if you walk on a loose one you can end up going off the roof.

I already fell off one roof, and had 2 more close calls... very close calls. Actually, I used to be 6'4", now I'm 4'6".

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

Well perhaps this will start a whole nuther topic.

I have no problem going the extra mile, and I will walk any roof that can be accessed safely, but I don't walk tile roofs. Besides it being extremely easy to break tiles. if you walk on a loose one you can end up going off the roof.

I already fell off one roof, and had 2 more close calls... very close calls. Actually, I used to be 6'4", now I'm 4'6".

See what you did...you went ahead and jinxed me. Gonna have to bring my rabbits foot on the roof now.
I weight a buck 50 so I'm good with the tile, I walk lightly. I actually dont do clay, however. Tried that once...lets just say it didnt go very well.

Originally Posted by Marc M

Hey Ken I have a question. Is your state a licensing state for HI's? If so, does you state dictate what HI's can and cannot do? Just wondering..

No problem Mark. In the upper right hand corner of the post it states where a person is located. I also am in California, hence no licensing requirement. CREIA is the acronym for the California Real Estate Inspection Association. Their SOP's are the standard for inspections in California. Hence SP testing is excluded, not required. Also see section 5 B 1: "The inspector is not required to fill any fixture with water....."

Originally Posted by Ken Schaumann

No problem Mark. In the upper right hand corner of the post it states where a person is located. I also am in California, hence no licensing requirement. CREIA is the acronym for the California Real Estate Inspection Association. Their SOP's are the standard for inspections in California. Hence SP testing is excluded, not required. Also see section 5 B 1: "The inspector is not required to fill any fixture with water....."

HAHA...sorry, I meant Ken R.
I'm pretty familiar withy CREIA. I've been doing inspections in CA for many, many moons. I dont subscribe to CREIA's anything. No real reason, I suppose It's because they dont benefit me in any way. I did the associations thing for a while.

Originally Posted by Marc M

Hey Ken I have a question. Is your state a licensing state for HI's? If so, does you state dictate what HI's can and cannot do? Just wondering..

Nope, no licensing here.

What home owner would ever have 2.5" of water in the pan? Unless of course the owner puts a face cloth over the drain or some other item falls over the drain?

How many of you fill the bath tub to see if there are leaks? But wait.. did you actually sit in the tub while it was full?

Not directed at any specific person, but in general discussion.

Anytime an inspection is done the inspector will make choices on how and to what extent they will test each item of their inspection. Some have said that they will go on any roof that is safely accessible, but then make exceptions based on the roof material due to the high potential of causing damage (breaking tile). Which returns us to the issue of testing/inspecting an item that the inspector knowingly has a high potential of failure and causing damage. When the inspector has not informed the property owner the nature of the test and the potential ramifications of that test.

I like most concede that there are a limited number of ways to test the shower pan. Being separate from testing the valves, fixtures and drain. Also, different form testing the tile (something for another thread). Mostly SP testing is just a mater of duration and depth of water used. How the depth is achieved , again is just a matter of practice and method.. Again, the determination of the integrity of the SP is a valid concern and testing it is what should be done for the client to provide a good inspection report, though exceeding most SOP.

First accepting that all owners have no prior knowledge of methodology of testing a shower pan and being different form the fixtures and drain test. Further, disregarding the issue of owner accessibility/availability or time expended contacting the owner, would it not be a good standard practice to inform the owner of the SP Test with an explanation of potential damage that may be incurred ? Then obtaining a written waiver for any resulting damage that may occur prior to testing ?

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

It was published by ASHI
You are saying that ASHI is not an industry standard

Obviously you chose to not read my post where I provided the link to the article, nor the article itself.

Words like beyond the scope, outside the SoP, etc. just skipped over.

No, articles in the ASHI reporter are NOT "Industry Standards" or "Standards of Practice" or anything similar UNLESS identified as being PUBLISHED AS SUCH. Even "opinion" or interps on SoPs and CoE columns are identified as merely opinion of the author(s) even those of committee.

The article was written by a PLUMBER. You also skipped over the multiple steps the PLUMBER described in the practice of his trade prior to flooding the SHOWER FLOOR (NOT raw "safe" PAN) - missing the point apparently of the myriad areas proven or investigated prior to same. The shower base, or finished shower floor is NOT a PAN. It may or may not be installed in a panned area. A pan test is for an unfinished area. A drop in the retained visible water level in a finished, tiled, DRY, UNUSED, unoccupied, unsaturated shower floor does NOT necessarily indicate a PAN LEAK or failure. Characterization regarding "test" on the "form" is invalid, consent and imdemnity worthless to unlicensed unauthorized practice of plumbing, etc. Performance as represented and described, regardless of suposed disclaim and consent would not indemnify HI regarding damages including tortious interferrance with a sale should the "supposed" leak not be of the pan itself, or not a "leak" at ALL but a flood event caused by the inappropriate flooding of the finished shower floor.

The Plumber wrote the article describing HIS approach in the practice of HIS TRADE, beyond the scope of a home inspection.

Proving a SAFE PAN at the appropriate stage of installation or repair is done by the tradesman, not by but TO the Building Official, or his/her representative, or a "home inspector".

I've eluded to examples regarding multitude invalid applications suggested already in this and the referenced former discussion. The linked article provides multiple examples as well. Wicked moisture, flooded or blocked weeps, shifted or bad drain gaskets; unnecessary work and/or damages you create by doing so at your own peril and your permission/disclaimer/easily pierced.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Obviously you chose to not read my post where I provided the link to the article, nor the article itself.

Words like beyond the scope, outside the SoP, etc. just skipped over.

No, articles in the ASHI reporter are NOT "Industry Standards" or "Standards of Practice" or anything similar UNLESS identified as being PUBLISHED AS SUCH. Even "opinion" or interps on SoPs and CoE columns are identified as merely opinion of the author(s) even those of committee.

The article was written by a PLUMBER. You also skipped over the multiple steps the PLUMBER described in the practice of his trade prior to flooding the SHOWER FLOOR (NOT raw "safe" PAN) - missing the point apparently of the myriad areas proven or investigated prior to same. The shower base, or finished shower floor is NOT a PAN. It may or may not be installed in a panned area. A pan test is for an unfinished area. A drop in the retained visible water level in a finished, tiled, DRY, UNUSED, unoccupied, unsaturated shower floor does NOT necessarily indicate a PAN LEAK or failure. Characterization regarding "test" on the "form" is invalid, consent and imdemnity worthless to unlicensed unauthorized practice of plumbing, etc. Performance as represented and described, regardless of suposed disclaim and consent would not indemnify HI regarding damages including tortious interferrance with a sale should the "supposed" leak not be of the pan itself, or not a "leak" at ALL but a flood event caused by the inappropriate flooding of the finished shower floor.

The Plumber wrote the article describing HIS approach in the practice of HIS TRADE, beyond the scope of a home inspection.

Proving a SAFE PAN at the appropriate stage of installation or repair is done by the tradesman, not by but TO the Building Official, or his/her representative, or a "home inspector".

I've eluded to examples regarding multitude invalid applications suggested already in this and the referenced former discussion. The linked article provides multiple examples as well.

The article stated, written by a plumber, suggests filling the shower with water to test for a leak. The author, by my reading, is directing the testing of the shower floor for leaks.

From :Inspecting Tiled Showers and Shower Pans | ASHI Reporter
".... Experienced inspectors know to cover the shower strainer and add water to check the integrity of the shower pan. I would encourage inspectors to fill the shower to approximately 1 to 1 1/2 inches below the door threshold. Do this early into the home inspection, so the water has ample time to make its escape. ..."

H.G.,
- Your siting "...Words like beyond the scope, outside the SoP, etc. just skipped over.
..." has nothing to do with the real discussion other than why someone is not required by Organization or State SOP.
- The exact nomenclature for the lower 3" of a shower stall should not be at issue. Especially when we all should have a common understanding that under the surface of the shower floor is some type of containment structural mterial (good or bad).
- The author wrote the article listing the progressive methods for the inspection and ultimate testing of the shower.
- The licensed plumbing idea doesn't really fly far since HI is not altering the plumbing nor is making a statement as to code (depending on state/city) when leak is found. Thus difficult to bridge to your statement "... regardless of suposed disclaim and consent would not indemnify HI regarding damages ..." How you determine that liability would not be mitigated if writen and informed consent is obtained prior to the test.
-

Siting the article does support the flood testing of the shower floor.

The article, as most are, offered as an opinion not a definitive directive for action.

ASHI may be offered as a standard in the industry, but is there an authority that accepts the burden of being the beginning and end of the testing methods for showers???

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Obviously you chose to not read my post where I provided the link to the article, nor the article itself.

Words like beyond the scope, outside the SoP, etc. just skipped over.

No, articles in the ASHI reporter are NOT "Industry Standards" or "Standards of Practice" or anything similar UNLESS identified as being PUBLISHED AS SUCH. Even "opinion" or interps on SoPs and CoE columns are identified as merely opinion of the author(s) even those of committee.

The article was written by a PLUMBER. You also skipped over the multiple steps the PLUMBER described in the practice of his trade prior to flooding the SHOWER FLOOR (NOT raw "safe" PAN) - missing the point apparently of the myriad areas proven or investigated prior to same. The shower base, or finished shower floor is NOT a PAN. It may or may not be installed in a panned area. A pan test is for an unfinished area. A drop in the retained visible water level in a finished, tiled, DRY, UNUSED, unoccupied, unsaturated shower floor does NOT necessarily indicate a PAN LEAK or failure. Characterization regarding "test" on the "form" is invalid, consent and imdemnity worthless to unlicensed unauthorized practice of plumbing, etc. Performance as represented and described, regardless of suposed disclaim and consent would not indemnify HI regarding damages including tortious interferrance with a sale should the "supposed" leak not be of the pan itself, or not a "leak" at ALL but a flood event caused by the inappropriate flooding of the finished shower floor.

The Plumber wrote the article describing HIS approach in the practice of HIS TRADE, beyond the scope of a home inspection.

Proving a SAFE PAN at the appropriate stage of installation or repair is done by the tradesman, not by but TO the Building Official, or his/her representative, or a "home inspector".

I've eluded to examples regarding multitude invalid applications suggested already in this and the referenced former discussion. The linked article provides multiple examples as well. Wicked moisture, flooded or blocked weeps, shifted or bad drain gaskets; unnecessary work and/or damages you create by doing so at your own peril and your permission/disclaimer/easily pierced.

Mr Watson
You provided the link, are you now saying it is not valid?
Testing
Experienced inspectors know to cover the shower strainer and add water to check the integrity of the shower pan. I would encourage inspectors to fill the shower to approximately 1 to 1 1/2 inches below the door threshold. Do this early into the home inspection, so the water has ample time to make its escape.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

What home owner would ever have 2.5" of water in the pan? Unless of course the owner puts a face cloth over the drain or some other item falls over the drain?

How many of you fill the bath tub to see if there are leaks? But wait.. did you actually sit in the tub while it was full?

You make my own personal point. We test because as long as the "potential" exists e.g. wash cloth, IMO it should be tested.

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

Not directed at any specific person, but in general discussion.

Anytime an inspection is done the inspector will make choices on how and to what extent they will test each item of their inspection. Some have said that they will go on any roof that is safely accessible, but then make exceptions based on the roof material due to the high potential of causing damage (breaking tile). Which returns us to the issue of testing/inspecting an item that the inspector knowingly has a high potential of failure and causing damage. When the inspector has not informed the property owner the nature of the test and the potential ramifications of that test.

I like most concede that there are a limited number of ways to test the shower pan. Being separate from testing the valves, fixtures and drain. Also, different form testing the tile (something for another thread). Mostly SP testing is just a mater of duration and depth of water used. How the depth is achieved , again is just a matter of practice and method.. Again, the determination of the integrity of the SP is a valid concern and testing it is what should be done for the client to provide a good inspection report, though exceeding most SOP.

First accepting that all owners have no prior knowledge of methodology of testing a shower pan and being different form the fixtures and drain test. Further, disregarding the issue of owner accessibility/availability or time expended contacting the owner, would it not be a good standard practice to inform the owner of the SP Test with an explanation of potential damage that may be incurred ? Then obtaining a written waiver for any resulting damage that may occur prior to testing ?

Hi Garry

First off. Please read this in its entirety. It is just my opinion and possible advise and an answer to your question as well as an answer to the original posters questions. Thats all. No rant.

My answer to the written disclosure, signed by a seller for "possible" damages to their property by using industry or the only way to test something properly. I say no. It opens up the whole world of written disclosure (liability release) signed by a seller before anything what so ever is tested in anyway by a home inspector. Get that signed and you better have them sign something else disclaiming the entire inspection such as the tub over flow leaking (what, you don't test that?) and causing water stain/damage on the ceiling below. Everyone that takes a bath wants that sucker filled to over flowing the overflow. But I guess that is "normal usage" so I guess testing that is just fine.

How about they say to you "well, you had be sign off on damage from doing a proper test on my shower liner/pan because of possible damage. How come you did not have me sign off on damage from testing the tub overflow. Also you did not have me sign a release of damages when you walked the roof. I had no idea I had rot up there and your foot would go thru".

Back to the disclaimer. Around here I almost absolutely never see or run into or talk to a seller. They are never around. That means getting emails or phone numbers to contact a seller to tell them that you may just destroy there home with all the tests your are going to do and is that OK with them? If it is OK with you fine sir could you please print this release of all damages to your home and sign it and leave it on the kitchen counter?

HVAC may start up and then short out. The garage door may collapse. When I open all the windows , which you folks never do, several of the springs may release and need repair. When I run the screws out of the electric panel one may hit a main line and short the panel out and kill me. Is that OK.

When I crawl thru your attic and my hand lands on a live wire and I slip off of the joist and fall thru the ceiling, is that OK with you. I mean after all. It was your bare wire that caused me to fall causing damage to your home. When I get out of the hospital I will give you some numbers to folks that fix that kind of thing.

When I ran you Whirlpool (just a name) one of the lines may be loose or pop off and water flood the first floor. I find leaks in whirlpools all the time and a whole lot more leaking than the shower, every time.

Disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer for everything in the home. And most if not all I mentioned is relatively common, well, kind of.

Just my opinion but i am thinking ......NOT! No one is going to sign off on anything if "there just might be damage to their home" from a particular test and then .... what about the rest of the disclaimer.

I am just thinking you are about to go down a foggy highway. Thus opening the door to more liability questions than you are trying to quell.

The home owners already know you are coming to their home and testing the electric system the plumbing system, which of course is for water supply and drainage/leak issues. HVAc, doors, floors, windows, roofs and all the associated concerns that might come out of the inspection. Why would one want to start asking permission for countless liability releases. Is one thinking of killing the home inspection business altogether.

Originally Posted by Marc M

You make my own personal point. We test because as long as the "potential" exists e.g. wash cloth, IMO it should be tested.

Okay point taken.

Now how many fill the bathtub to see if the overflow functions?

As I asked before how many inspectors get in the tub full of water, because some tubs only leak when someone is in it.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Okay point taken.

Now how many fill the bathtub to see if the overflow functions?

As I asked before how many inspectors get in the tub full of water, because some tubs only leak when someone is in it.

Not me..too risky.

I think that is the whole point. They WONT sign the disclaimer and then you can skate when the pan leaks.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Thompson

I think that is the whole point. They WONT sign the disclaimer and then you can skate when the pan leaks.

Never liked skating. My feet always froze for the first hour until the thaw out cycle started

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

HVAC may start up and then short out. The garage door may collapse. When I open all the windows , which you folks never do, several of the springs may release and need repair... Is that OK.

I'm sure you understand the difference between operating a garage door (using normal controls or methods as the homeowner would do), and purposefully blocking the shower drain and flooding the shower pan.
Or do you remove some of the rollers and see if door still operates without falling?

I think I understand your point of view, but your analogy is way off.

Dom.

I am not sure about you folks but I find blocked drains in the shower in brand new and existing homes. Hair is the culpert in the existing homes and tile chips and grout in the drain in new homes. I cannot even begin to guess the amount of times there is slow drains and the water fills up itself with absolutely no outside help. That is why this entire "flooding the shower pan", "intentionally blocking the drain" "creating a leak" is actually so comical. The garage door was an example of normal testing and **** happens. The walking on the roof it also happens. Filling a tub like every human on the planet up to the over flow or it gets to the overflow once in the tub. Every single scenario is "normal operation testing including the shower pan.

I will make everyone quite happy and just make my last comment on this thread.

The shower pan filling up a bit to quite a bit *is* normal use in a massive number of showers I have inspected over the decades and they fill all by themselves with out a barrier of any kind. Add the barrier and they just fill quicker. The liner of what ever kind it is under the tile .... in case folks just do not get the understanding of what it is for.

It is there to "not allow" water to get thru. If it does. It already had a leak. No one is intentionally creating one. No one is doing anything abnormal to "MAKE" it leak. If it leaks it leaks. Just like garage doors that were gone over manually and everything seemed fine until that motor button is hit and something binds. Guess what, they want you to pay for that crumpled door as well.

Check the shower for leaks or don't test the shower for leaks. It is that simple.

If it has a leak you and the buyer won't know until tomorrow or a month from now when a wash cloth is on the floor and they are running the water while getting ready to get in.

Damn, the shower is leaking. Waver, no waver. Release of liability or not. I just don't like skating unless it is dry and indoors with wheels.

End of the thread ...... for me.

I guess my whole point is once a house is finished the time for possible destructive testing has passed. When Ford designs and builds a new car it is put through stress and destructive testing but once it is finally built.... to make it last it has to be taken care of. A house is the same...there is no need to speed up the natural deterioration process just because you can. A roof or a shower will leak on its own when the time comes but if you abuse it you can surely speed up when the leak happens. YOMV

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Okay point taken.

Now how many fill the bathtub to see if the overflow functions?

As I asked before how many inspectors get in the tub full of water, because some tubs only leak when someone is in it.

The only places I can imagine a tub leaking from is either from the drain or overflow (or a hole to attach an accessory). What type of leak would be caused (other than overflowing the sides, which is not a leaking tub) by getting in?

While there maybe leakage in the areas you note, they may not necessarily leak with just water, the addition of the weight of a person could cause them to open up.

Originally Posted by James Duffin

...there is no need to speed up the natural deterioration process just because you can.

Performing a shower pan test does not speed up the natural deterioration of the shower pan - either the shower pan is installed properly or it is not.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

While there maybe leakage in the areas you note, they may not necessarily leak with just water, the addition of the weight of a person could cause them to open up.

Other than water?

Such as??

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

Other than water?

Such as??

Such as the weight placed where one puts their foot and flexes plastic tubs and steel tubs, and cracks (plastic tubs) or rust (steel tubs) around the drains can leak when the tube is flexed from standing in it.

Those would be my first thoughts ... because I've seen both.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Such as the weight placed where one puts their foot and flexes plastic tubs and steel tubs, and cracks (plastic tubs) or rust (steel tubs) around the drains can leak when the tube is flexed from standing in it.

Those would be my first thoughts ... because I've seen both.

I see where you're going, and I've seen them too. I thought that the response meant something other than water was leaking.

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

I see where you're going, and I've seen them too. I thought that the response meant something other than water was leaking.

GIN leaking may be the answer.

Ted,
This thread demonstrates the need for testing the shower, though it is not known what type of inspection was really done.
http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...-plumbing.html

The entire point is that doing a shower pan liner test may, if defective (and a lot are), may cause damage to the property. This test is more prone for damage than opening a widow or flushing a toilet since the test presumes that the drain will be blocked and the pan flooded. Which is not a daily common event. The toilet is supposed to be sealed to the floor to prevent water penetration, but we do not test that seal.

More to the point it is about informing the owner of what is going to take place. Many, if any, do not have a clue as to what a true inspection is all about and what will be done. I agree that getting a signed release for anything and everything that will take place during a inspection is not realistic. It is only in the case that the inspector knows that there is a high potential for damage, unknown by the owner, for a particular test or part of an inspection that a little additional caution for reducing liability or the errant law suite may be warranted.

It is more about being professional and increasing the level of professionalism in home inspections. Even if it take additional time and effort.

I will leave the dead horse lye where it is now found.

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

Ted,
This thread demonstrates the need for testing the shower, though it is not known what type of inspection was really done.
http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...-plumbing.html

The entire point is that doing a shower pan liner test may, if defective (and a lot are), may cause damage to the property. This test is more prone for damage than opening a widow or flushing a toilet since the test presumes that the drain will be blocked and the pan flooded. Which is not a daily common event. The toilet is supposed to be sealed to the floor to prevent water penetration, but we do not test that seal.

More to the point it is about informing the owner of what is going to take place. Many, if any, do not have a clue as to what a true inspection is all about and what will be done. I agree that getting a signed release for anything and everything that will take place during a inspection is not realistic. It is only in the case that the inspector knows that there is a high potential for damage, unknown by the owner, for a particular test or part of an inspection that a little additional caution for reducing liability or the errant law suite may be warranted.

It is more about being professional and increasing the level of professionalism in home inspections. Even if it take additional time and effort.

I will leave the dead horse lye where it is now found.

I turn on the computer and bring my email back up and as the emails load the last one at the top is someone trying to pull me back in

All I will say is I know all to well about professionalism and bringing an upper level of professionalism is what my business plan all my working life. That is why I check shower pans. It is also why I do not get permission slips signed from sellers (which is completely impossible around here anyway) because if you mevtion "POSSIBLE" damage to a seller and sign here .... they are not going to sign it. The top post ofn this page from Benjamin T is not what I want to do in the slightest. I never have been in the mode of

"They WONT sign the disclaimer and then you can skate when the pan leaks"

That just does the complete opposite of the professionalism you talk about. That leaves you and the lady that you mentioned from the other thread holding the bag. She will now be out a couple thousand. That of course depends on the extent of the damage from the *already leaking shower pan* She did not make it leak and the previous owners or previous inspectors di not make it leak. The only way someone can get a shower pan to leak is *if there was already a leak* or someone installs one wrong. She moves in, smells the obvious but does not see signs of where it is coming from

What you forgot to add is that the highlighted red above is you believing that your point you bring up is the best for the industry and is solely your opinion. My point I have been trying to make, and also pointing out that your and anyone else opinion may vary, is that no matter what your idea or thoughts or opinions are, you are leaving your client holding the bag.

To me, that is about the most unprofessional thing you can do. You are there inspecting to "REDUCE" the financial risk in the clients home buying process. Not to blow it off. At best the seller gets a wet spot (it has been leaking already). At the least your client gets is a couple grand in repairs, if you don't at least give it a good go at finding if "it already leaks".


Those are my opinions and you may do or not do as you wish. I prefer to give it the old college try and protect my client the best I can. Damage to the sellers home. The damage is already there but was just never openly visible . drip, drip, drip, drip, drip and the wet spot never appeared or may have slightly and was never noticed.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

Damage to the sellers home. The damage is already there but was just never openly visible . drip, drip, drip, drip, drip and the wet spot never appeared or may have slightly and was never noticed.

Or, as an alternative explanation, the damage wasn't there YET, because the current owner doesn't plug the drain on purpose before taking a shower. You have to acknowledge the possibility.

(Just had to drag you back in for a few more posts...)

Dom.