WATER TREATMENT, DRAINAGE & PIPED SERVICES TMV management & legionella risk assessment T


Effective control of Legionella, scalding risk and wider waterborne pathogens relies on informed, structured risk assessments, where Thermostatic Mixing Valves (TMV) management plays a central and often underestimated role. Jim Perry, senior consultant and authorising engineer (water) at Water Hygiene Centre, explains


MVs are frequently treated as standard fixtures rather than critical safety devices requiring justification, monitoring and governance. In reality, the decision to install, retain, remove or modify a TMV should always be driven by risk assessment, balancing scalding risk with microbiological risk. Across healthcare, education and public or commercial estates, preventable Legionella risks rarely stem from major system failures. More often, they develop gradually through overlooked design decisions, redundant outlets, poorly maintained TMVs and low use outlets or facilities that introduce stagnation into otherwise compliant systems. A minor oversight today can quickly become an incident tomorrow.


Why TMV management matters


TMVs are primarily installed to mitigate scalding risk, particularly in environments serving vulnerable users such as healthcare settings, schools and care facilities.


By blending hot and cold water to a controlled outlet temperature, they reduce the likelihood of thermal injury at the point of use. However, from a microbiological perspective, TMVs introduce additional complexity:


• Mixed temperature zones within the valve body


• Internal components such as strainers and check valves prone to fouling


• Reduced temperatures downstream of the blending point


• Increased maintenance and inspection requirements.


Where servicing, fail-safe testing and performance verification are inconsistent, TMVs can become areas of temperature instability and biofilm accumulation. For this reason, TMVs must be understood as dual risk control devices, not a standalone scalding solution. Their use must always be justified through a combination of scalding risk assessment and water safety / Legionella risk assessment.


Installation by default, without structured justification, increases system complexity without necessarily reducing overall risk.


When TMVs are not required


TMVs are often installed as a precaution rather than through risk-based decision making. They may not be required where:


• The outlet is staff-only • Scald risk is low • Temperatures are already safely controlled centrally [potentially with a supplementary control method, i.e., online dosing]


• Risk assessment that supports alternative control measures.


• Removing TMVs — a structured approach • Where a TMV is deemed unnecessary, removal must be controlled and documented:


• Review and update the Legionella Risk Assessment


• Reassess and document scalding risk • Remove the TMV via competent person • Reconfigure pipework to avoid deadlegs or stagnation


• Update schematics, asset registers and the Water Safety Plan.


Removal should reduce complexity and eliminate risk, not introduce new stagnation points or risk.


When TMVs are required There are clear scenarios where TMVs are


24 BUILDING SERVICES & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER OCTOBER 2026


essential, particularly where vulnerable users are present, which may include:


• Healthcare environments • Schools and nurseries • Care homes • Public washrooms.


In these settings, TMVs must be:


• Correctly specified [e.g. TMV2 or TMV3 depending on the environment]


• Installed as close to the point of use as possible


• Commissioned to safe outlet temperatures [typically 39–43°C, outlet / facility dependent]


• Included within routine servicing, calibration and fail-safe testing programmes.


A TMV that is installed but not maintained is not a control, it is an unmanaged risk.


Managing underused cold taps


A commonly identified configuration during Legionella risk assessments is a wash hand basin supplied via a TMV-controlled blended outlet [often labelled “hot”] alongside a separate cold tap that is rarely or never used. From a scalding perspective, this may appear appropriate. However, from a water safety standpoint, the rarely used cold outlet presents a potential stagnation point. Low-use pipework can allow water to remain static for prolonged periods, increasing the likelihood of:


• Temperature drift into the 20–45°C range • Biofilm development along internal surfaces


• Reduced disinfectant residual • Amplification of waterborne pathogens.


In this context, “no use” does not equate to “no risk.” It represents unmanaged stagnation within a configuration that may no longer reflect operational reality.


What should happen to the unused cold tap? There are three risk-based approaches:


1. Flushing regime (short-term control) Where removal is not immediately possible: • Implement routine flushing (typically weekly, minimum 2 minutes)


• Record and monitor compliance • Document clearly within the Legionella Risk Assessment.


Short-term controls such as flushing can mitigate risk, but they are dependent on consistent implementation and documented oversight.


2. Remove the redundant outlet


Where the tap is not required: • Remove the cold tap and associated pipework


• Cap pipework as close to the branch connection as possible or piece through


• Eliminate deadlegs in line with HSG274 guidance.


This removes stagnation risk at source. 3. Redesign as a single blended outlet


A more robust long-term solution: • Install a single TMV-blended outlet • Remove redundant hot/cold configurations


• Improve system turnover through regular use.


These decisions should always be driven by risk assessment rather than assumption.


Governance must be proportionate, documented and reflective of real-world use — not historic design assumptions.


Long-term risk control through intentional TMV strategy


TMV management is not solely about preventing scalding and Legionella control is not solely about monitoring temperature.


Both require a coordinated, risk-based approach that considers:


• Stagnation • System design and complexity • Hydraulic performance and turnover • Long-term maintainability.


The most resilient estates are those that challenge legacy arrangements and ensure every outlet / facility and TMV remains justified.


Read the latest at: www.bsee.co.uk


Integration with Legionella Risk Assessments


Legionella Risk Assessments must do more than identify hazards; they must drive action and reflect real world usage.


They should: • Justify whether TMVs are required or not • Identify underused or redundant outlets • Define flushing regimes where necessary • Recommend removal of deadlegs and unnecessary pipework


• Align system design with operational behaviour.


All remedial actions must be: • Clearly documented • Assigned to responsible competent persons


• Tracked through to completion. The role of the water safety plan


The Water Safety Plan is the mechanism through which risk assessment decisions are embedded into operational control.


It should include: • TMV inventory and maintenance schedules


• Records of TMV installation, removal or modification


• Flushing protocols for low use outlets • Updated schematics reflecting actual installations


• Evidence of monitoring, servicing and compliance.


If an unused cold tap remains, it’s management must be clearly defined.


Reactive compliance vs engineered risk reduction


A recurring issue across many estates is the shift toward reactive compliance, where: • TMVs are installed without reviewing actual need.


• Low-use outlets remain in place despite stagnation risk.


• Deadlegs are assumed insignificant. • Maintenance regimes do not reflect system complexity.


Effective water safety management requires:


• Alignment between Legionella and • scalding risk assessments • Accurate asset registers and up-to-date schematics


• Routine TMV servicing, calibration and fail-safe testing


• Regular review of outlet necessity and usage


• Removal of redundant assets where reasonably practicable.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38