Originally Posted By: rjones1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I like to think that most of these types of requirements were developed for a reason, even though I wasn’t in the room when the discussion was taking place.
I imagine that they (the code makers) wanted the pipe close to the floor so that no one was likely to get hurt if they happen to be in the area when the valve let go. I also imagine that they decided to keep it off the floor a little bit so that it could be detected should the valve let go, or leak.
Running the pipe into the crawl does not allow for resonable detection. If the pipe goes through the floor, I write that up as a defect. Now, if the pipe is a few inches above a drain pan, and the pan drains into the crawl, that appears to accomplish the goal without making a mess on the floor. I don't measure how far the pipe is from the floor, but I try to make sense of the set up I'm looking at, at the time. If it accomplishes both the safety and the detection criteria, I move on to something else.
I NEVER exercise the valve. I don't want to be standing in the utility room, with my client, trying to figure out how to unstick a stuck-open valve.
I do, however, recommend to my client that when, or if, they do install a NEW water heater, to exercise the valve once a month (while they're doing their monthly smoke detector test) in order to make sure it's in working order and to keep the crud from building up on the valve. This is part of my maintenance recommendations segment should the buyer be following me around.
I don't inspect for code, but I try to inspect for reasonableness, otherwise I'd have to write a book on most of the homes I'm in.
Am I making any mistakes here?
General Inspections, Inc.