When we do a low pressure install we bring it up to standard. We put in a tempering valve, cold feed expansion if it's valve vented and of course seismic restraints. We loose a lot of installs because that's how we price. The picture attached is a year old and one we lost on price, we just happened to be there the other day looking at an unrelated issue. What do you think?

Linkback: https://www.plumbers.nz/q-and-a-hot-water-cylinders/44/low-pressure-hwc-installs/1876/

On second look, it is a side entry cylinder so why didn't he use it? It's not too close to door, he could have snuck a shut off valve in there easy.

Hey rocketeer2, your image is not working.. getting a 404

Im shocked about this result. Never mind the safety aspects, lets just cut corners to make a "sale". It should at least be a legal requirement to point it out to home owners as how would they know any better? 

hi ppl, like for like is just that.
If the customer doesnt want to pay for extras, you have no choice regardless of what you say.
We do hundreds of like for likes where the customer wont pay for any extras, they just dont want a leaking cylinder.
and there is a lot of ppl out there who certainly dont want a tempering valve.

I did try to resist posting on this one .....

First a declaration of my conflict of interest ... I provide a CPD course on this topic. The way the course treats this was checked by the PGDB.

I would really love to see the written detail of Master Plumbers opinion as I have looked really hard and cant find anything in the Building Act or Code to support their view. Could be there and I would love to know. But I have never found it.

The only piece of evidence I have ever been able to find that a replacement cylinder doesn't need a tempering valve is the attached article in the BIA news from 1994.

BIA news is no longer available electronically on the Department of Building and Housing website. DBH has this to say about BIA news on their website:

"The Department of Building and Housing offers Ministry of Housing and Building Industry Authority publications as historical reference material only, and takes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. The Department of Building and Housing shall not be held liable for any claim for direct or indirect loss or damage as a result of reliance on the information contained in the documents."

I have previously considered the thread through the regulations outlined in the BIA news article.

The BIA news states: “However because the new fitting is a replacement the existing plumbing system is not altered …”

The problem with this statement is that the term “alter” is defined in the building act as below. Not sure if this was the same back in 1994.

alter, in relation to a building, includes to rebuild, re-erect,
repair, enlarge, and extend the building

and a building is

8 Building: what it means and includes
(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, building—
(a) means a temporary or permanent movable or immovable
structure (including a structure intended for occupation
by people, animals, machinery, or chattels); and
(b) includes—
(i) a mechanical, electrical, or other system; and

So a reading of this suggests if the water heating system had not failed and required repair,  and you were just replacing the water heater because say the homeowner wanted a shinier one, then a tempering valve would not be required.

However in pretty much all cases the cylinder is being replaced because it has failed – in building act terms a mechanical system has failed and you are repairing the system. Because you are repairing the system you are altering the building according to the definitions in the act. The building work has to comply with the building code and you need a tempering valve.

Probably something that should go to DBH for a determination at some stage then we will all have a binding ruling and a level playing field.

Cheers
Grant

Hi Grant - thanks for the info, I am sure I am not the only one who values your input and feel it a shame that you resist from posting more often, I wish TS would have continued to post also as i believe it does great credit to this forum to have a view point from all sides.

Thanks for taking the time, cheers

Great thanks for some clarity there Grant.

This is where sharing knowledge Via a forum is so valuable, these pearls of wisdom save a lot of leg work.

I wonder how many hours are spent collectively researching material for a clear definition on compliance?

A good week at you all.