Report of Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances

James N. Macdonald, Chairman Travelers Insurance, Co.

Thomas 3. Hard, Secretary T. 3. Hard Companies

(Rep. NAFED)

Phil Ackland, Commercial Vent Cleaning Co. Ltd Samuel Crabtree, Crabtree, McGrath Assoc., Inc.

Rep. FSCSI Dennis N. Gage, ISO Commercial Risk Services, Inc. Edson C. Gaylord,'Gaylord Industries, Inc.

Rep. NAFEM Joseph N. Knapp, McDonalds Corp. John P. Langmead, Gas Appliance Mfrs. Assn, Donald T. Mann, Aetna Life & Casualty

Rep. AISG Gary A. Nadolny, Ansul Fire Protection

Rep. FEMA 3ayendra S. Parikh, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Joseph F. Schulz, Van-Packer Products, Inc.

Rep. ASHRAE Lawrence E. Stah], Hardees Food Systems., Inc.

Rep. NRA Leo Stambaugh, Texas Ut i l i t ies Electric, Co.

Rep. EEEI

Alternates

Donald 3. Begley, Andersen Fire Equipment Co., Inc. (Alternate to T. 3. Hard)

Robert L. Donahue, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (Alternate to 3. S. Parlkh)

Michael 3. Laderoute, ASCOA Fire Systems Rep. FEMA (Alternate to G. A. Nadolny)

Philip O. Morton, Gaylord Industries, Inc. (Alternate to E. C. Gaylord)

Dan Redd, Southwestern Public Service Co. Rep. EEI (Alternate to L. Stambaugh)

Harry Schildkraut, Cini-Grissom Assoc., Inc. (Alternate to S. Crabtree)

Staff Liaison: Richard Ortisi-Best

This l i s t represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred.

The Report of the Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances is prese,ted for adoption.

This Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances and proposes for adoption amendments to NFPA 96-1987, Standard for the Installation of Equipment for the Removal of Smoke and Grease-Laden Vapors from Commercial Cooking Equipment. NFPA 96-1987 is published in Volume 4 of the 19~59 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

This Report has been submitted to let ter ballot of the Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances, which consists of 14 voting members, in 3 Segments.

Segment No. I consists of Proposal 96-91 (Log #30) 7-3.1.4,

On Segment No. 1, Proposal 96-91 (Log #30), 12 voted a f f l r m a t i v e l y and 2 negat ive ly (Messrs. Hard and Knapp).

Mr. Hard voted negat ive ly and stated his opposi t ion is w i th in the Commlttee Statement " .~. to make language consistent with requirement in! NFPA 17A."

Mr. Hard fu r ther stated:" "The Standards Council has asked committees to

make the Standards easier to understand. I f the 96 committee wishes " . . . to make language consistent with requirement in NFPA 17A," why not use the same language as 17A?

The tex t should read "The ext ingu ish ing system shal l be connected to the alarm system, i f i provided, in accordance with the requirements of the appropr iate s lgna l lng system standard (NFPA'7I, 72A, 72C, or 72D) so that actuat ion of the system w i l l actuate a f i r e alarm system as well as proyide the funct ion o f . the ext inguish ing system."

Mr. Knapp voted negat ive ly s ta t ing : "" "Log #30 (7-3.1.4) is far too genera] and'broad

in scope. According to th i s , i f one s ingle tennant in a very large bu i ld ing had hts own persona] alarm system, every f i r e ext ingu ish ing system in that bu i ld ing (premises) would have to connect to i t : The item does not d is t ingu ish whether an~ of the alarm systems or f i r e suppression systems are for cooking equipment on]y, or fo r spr ink le rs , storage, dumpsters, burglar alarms, etc. This would be i chaos."

Segment No. 2 consists of ~Proposal 96-92 (Log #94) 8-1.6..

On Segment No. 2, 12 voted affirmatively and 2 negatively (Messrs. Hard and Morton).

Mr. Hard voted negatively stating: ~ i " I oppose the last phrase of the recommendation,

" . . . shall not be conducted while the cooking i equipment is operational." .I

This is in direct conflict with NrPA 17,' F paragraph 2-11 and paragraph 6-3.1 as well as NFPA ]7A, paragraph 3-3. One cannot conduct maintenance on the f i re suppression system in accordance with the manufacturers l isted instal lat ion and maintenance manual without openihg the exhaust system AND having the cooking equipment operational. How would you service downstream detectors, as required? How would you check fuel shut-off and make up air shut-down, as required?

I recommend not to include 8-1.6 in the Standard as i t is in conflict with NFPA 17 and 17A."

Mr. Morton voted negatively stating: " I don't believe that shutting off the exhaust

system or reducing the air flow comprimises the f i re system of the hood. In regards to working on the f i re suppression system, essentially this would mean that a majority of the systems would have to be worked on at night during off hours. This in my opinion is an unrealistic request. While I understand the intent of the proposal I doh't believe we have any evidence to show that fires have occured during malntenanc ~ of f i re systems."

Segments No. 3 consists of the balance of the Proposals.

On Segment No. 3 (balance of Proposals), al l 14 voted affirmatively.

7 4 7

(Log #16) 96- 1 - ( I - I ) : Reject SUBMITTER: 3ose Gomis, City of Sarasota Building Department R_EC~)MMENDATION: Revised tex t :

( in part) . . . "the cooking equipmentused in a commercial, indus t r ia l , i ns t i t u t i ona l cooking appl icat ion" . . .

2 - (delet ing: "and s imi lar " ) I - (delet ing: "there with")

SUBSTANTATI~ATI_O_N_: Inspectors ca l l ing breakroom area or room fo r four people in a commercial o f f i ce building in a doctor's o f f i ce , tenant area, or in an industr ia l building fo r t h i r t y workers with a lunch area, snack room fo r ten workers at a time, or at a recreational buildlng of an ins t i t u t i ona l organization or that of a church cultural hal1. A11 with a range For warming of lunches or pastry fo r lunch or part ies.

(of food which is not for sale or o f f a snack machine in a small o f f i ce area fo r employees only.) COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter that there are "s imi lar" ins ta l la t ions that may not require the protection features covered in Standard 96, but the Committee is also well aware of other cooking applications that do. .Therefore, the Committee feels that the scope wording should remain as is so that the Authority Having 3ur isdict ion can exercise his/her descretion in the matter.

(Log #17) 96- 2 - ( I - I ) : Reject SUBMITTER: 3ose Gomis/William.A. Hewes, City of Sarasota Building Department RECOMMENDATION: Revised text :

I - I Scope. This edi t ion of NFPA 96 covers basic requirements for the design, i ns ta l l a t i on and use of exhaust system components including ( I ) hoods; (2) grease removal devices; (3) exhaust ducts; (4) dampers; (5) a i r moving devices; (6) aux i l i a ry equipment; and (7) f i r e extinguishing equipment fo r the exhaust system used ill a commercial, indust r ia l , i ns t i t u t i ona l cooking appl icat ion.

NOTE: The equipment rat ing even i f fo r resident ia l family use, but i f used in commercial appl icat ion requires protect ion. Breakroom or snack areas of commercial, indus t r ia l , or i ns t i tu t i ona l bui lding not in the production of food. Use only For warm up, requires no protect ion.

SUBSTANTIATION: Interpretat ion to th is section should be for tile appl icat ion in which the equipment is used, not tile type of bui lding in which i t is placed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Action and Statement Proposal 96-I (Log #16).

(Log #18) 96- 3 - ( I - I ) : Reject ~ : Jose Gomis/William A. Hewes, City of Sarasota Building Department RECOMMENDATION:

Add to the answer - Yes and No. Yes i f fo r commercial, industr ia l or i ns t i tu t i ona l

food preparation in which the food is sold to a customer.

No i f in a breakroom fo r employees and used only fo r the warming of Food already prepared at another location even i f stored in coin operated machine.

No i f in a recreational building or church cul tural hal l where the range is only used for the warming of food (pastry) or the l i ke for lunches, dinners and part ies. As long as the food is prepared at another location and not a dai ly operation. SUBSTANTIATION: The fact that a range in a commercial, industr ia l or i ns t i tu t i ona l bui lding does not mean that i t is being used for a commercial, industr ia l or i ns t i tu t iona l cooking appl icat lon. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Proposal addresses a Forma~ Interpretat ion and does not recommend specif ic changes to language in the standard. See Proposals 96-I (Log #16) and 96-2 (Log #17).

(Log #105) 96- 4 - ( I - I ) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances RECOMMENDATION: Add an aster isk a f te r I - I to indicate explanatory material in Appendix A.

Add new A-I - I as fol lows: A- I - I The appl icat ion of NFPA 96 is concerned with

the potent ial f i r e hazard of cooking operations, i r respect ive of the type of cooking equipment used, whether used in public or pr ivate f a c i l i t i e s .

The standard is intended to also include resident ial cooking equipment where used f o r purposes o the r than r e s i d e n t i a l fami l y use such as employee k i tchens or break areas, church and meeting ha l l k i tchens regardless o f frequency of use. Since the standard cannot address specif ic i ns ta l la t ions , the judgment must be made the author i ty having ju r i sd ica t lon . SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee has attempted to provide some guidance for users of the standard as to why the standard does not attempt to address every conceivable var ia t ion of cooking equipment. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #101) 96- 5 - ( I -1.2 (New)): Reject

• SUBMITTER: James R. Anderson, Evergreen Tool Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add a new paragraph I-1.2 to read as fol lows:

The primary theory of f l re protection in the vent i la t ing system is to build the vent i la t ing system strong enough and t ight enough such that the vent i la t ing system can withstand a burn-out yet not communicate the f i r e to the rest of the building structure. I t is fo r these reasons that the specif ic requirements of this standard such as the metal thickness, the all-welded construction, the clearance to combustibles, etc. are established. SUBSTANTIATION: Over the years of dealing with and using the NFPA 96 Standard i t has come to mind that i t may be useful to include in the standard a statement of intent and/or a theory of f i r e protection around which the body of the standard has evolved. I t is this premise or theory that guides the changes to the exist ing body of the standard. I f a statement of this nature were presented at the beginning of the standard and/or at the beginning of various sections, the reason for some of the more specif ic aspects of the standard would be clear. I t would also make the intent of the standard clear when a judgment call is necessary because a speci f ic of the standard cannot be met for one reason or another. As i t current ly stands, when a building o f f i c i a l is called upon to make a judgment (and this happens a l l the time) he may not have the background to do so in accordance with the intent of the standard. As a resul t , the o f f i c i a l ' s opinion may be somewhat a rb i t ra ry and may not result in the safest solut ion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee f e l t that the statement was implied by the standard and was not needed as a separate statement of intent or theory under the section on scope. Further, the committee f e l t that this kind of statement was too narrow in scope and would not answer a l l questions by o f f i c i a l s .

(Log #28) 96- 6 , - ( I -2 ) : Reject ~UBMITTER: Michael N. Bryant, Clearwater, FL RECOMMENDATION: New text :

1-2 Def in i t ions. Grease-laden vapors. Concentrated level of grease

vapors released into the atmosphere due to the grease product being heated to or above i t s vaporization temperature or bo i l ing temperature. SUBSTANTIATION: Term grease-laden vapors is ambiguous and a nontechnical term that has no known wri t ten meaning. Liquids vaporize when they are heated to the point where the vapor pressure of the l iqu id equals the atmospheric pressure- bo i l ing temperature or boi l ing point. For example: fa t boi ls at 475 degrees Farenhelt. No standard for grease-laden vapors exists.

748

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposed definit ion is in i tse l f ambiguous. A definit ion is not technically available at this time. Research is being done'to determine a threshold of grease concentrations over time.

(Log #36) 96- 7 - (I-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Phll Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. " RECOMMENDATION: Definition "Charcoal" or "Solid Fuel."

"Any solid fuel such as briquettes, mesquite, hardwood, charcoal or other solid sources of fuel used in preparing food." ~ ' SUBSTANTIATION: This distinction wi l l help to understand the difference between solid fuels and gas or e lectr ic i ty- Solid fuels pose a different problem in managing the f i re risk as they cannot be automatically shut off. Also, they produce ash and carbon which mixes with grease v~ipors increasing the volume of build up. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add new definition as follows: Solid Cooking Fuel. Any solid organic consumable

fuel such as briquettes, mesquite, hardwood, or charcoal. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Changes to better suit the intent of the standard.

(Log #66) 96- 8 - (I-2): Reject SUBMITTER: J. S. Parikh, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Include the following definition of "Power Ventilator."

Power Ventilator. An air-moving appliance consisting of an impeller - which may be of the centrifugal, axial, or propeller type - and an integral driver. A power venti lator is (I) installed in a weather-resisting base intended Lo f i t , usually by a curb, over a wall or roof opening, or (2) provided with flanges for connection to a duct. SUBSTANTIATION: This revision is; suggested so as to be consistent with the proposed revision to paragraph 5-I. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Power Ventilator is not industry terminology and is not needed in the standard.

(Log #110) 96- 9 - (I-2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances RECOMMENDATION: Revise definit ion of Combustible Material as follows:

"Combustible Material. Materi~l subject to increase in combustibility or flame spread rating beyond the limits established in definition of Limited-Combustible".

Add new definitions of Limited-Combustible and Noncombustible in section I-2 as follows:

Limited-Combustlble. As applied to a building construction material, a material, not complying with the definition of noncombustible material, which, in the form ill which i t is used, has; a potential hea~ value not exceeding 3500 Btu per Ib (8141Kj/Kg), ~ and complies with one of the following paragraphs (a) . or (b). Materials subject to increase in combustibility or flame spread r~Lting beyond the l imits herein established through the effects of age, moisture, or other atmospheric condition shall be considered combustible.

(a) Materials having a structural base of noncombustible material, with a surfacing not exceeding a thickness of I/8 in. (3.2 mm) which has a flame spread rating not greater than 5(I.

(b) Materials, in the form and thickness used, other than as described in (a), having neither a flame spread rating greater than 25 nor evidence of continued progressive combustion and of such composition that surfaces that would be exposed by cutting through the

material on any plane would have neither a flame spread rating greater than 25 nor evidence of continued progressive combustion.

Noncombustible Material. A material which, in the form in which i t is used and under the conditions anticipated, wi l l not ignite, burn, support combustion, or release flammable vapors, when subjected to f i re or heat. Materials which are reported as passing ASTM E136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750°C, shall be considered noncombustible materlals. SUBSTAN_ffJ-IATION: To c lar i fy committee's intent and resolve questions regarding role of gypsum board and clearance to combustible materials reflected in numerous formal interpretation requests. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #42) 96- 10 - (I-3): Reject SUBMITTER: Phll Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: New text:

"Multiple outlet systems commonly known as food fairs or food malls that may have a number of different owners or operators requires a section in the code all by i tse l f . In addition to the normal regulations certain rules need to be applied that are of particular concern to food fairs." SUBSTANTIATION: A large number of specialized variations need to be considered when dealing wlth food fairs. These food malls which have recently grown in popularity pose a unique problem in there design, installation, management, operation and various types of cooking. From a f i re safety basis this situation can best be managed i f uniformity is maintained. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~)~4~ITTEE STATEMENT: Recommendation is addressed in 96-12 (Log #38).

(Log #37) 96- 11 - (I-3): Reject SUBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver,,B. C. RECOMMENDATION: New text:

"In multiple outlet systems the cooking fuels should be only gas or electrical with automatic shut off. No other fuels should be a11owed i .e. hardwood, briquette, mesquite and others." SUBSTANTIATION: Fuel sources such as hardwood and briquettes pose a unique and more dangerous situation then does gas and electr ic i ty because they cannot be automatically shut off in case of f i re. Also, these fuels tradi t ional ly are used in open-flame cooking which also increases f i re risk. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Proposal 96-16 (Log #43)

(Log #38) 96- 1Z - (1-3): Accept in Pr inciple ~ : Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECQMMENDATI__O_~: New text:

"In multiple outlet systems the air volume must be calculated to provide each individual hood with acceptable air velocity." SUBSTANTIATION: Because a number of outlets wil l be using a common shaft, care must be taken to ensure sufficient air movement to exhaust the volume of vapors from each outlet. COMMITTEE ACTI_O_ff: Accept in Principle.

Revise new text under I-3.2 as follows: I-3.2 Multiple tenancy applications shall require

the concerted cooperation of design, installation, operation and maintenance responsibilities by both tenants and the building owner.

Renumber existing I-3.2 clearance, I-3.3 and I-3.4. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agreed with the submitter, but fe l t that an expanded statement was necessary.

749

(Log #39) 96- 13 - (I-3): Reject SUBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RE~OMM~ND~: New text:

"In multiple outlet systems the fan should continue to operate in case of f i re . " SUBSTANTIATION: By localizing the f i re in one area you do not jeopardize the operation of other outlets. Therefore, the fan must continue to run. COMMITTEE AT~_TIQN: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The requirement is covered in existing language, subsection 5-2.3.

(Log #40) 96- 14 - (I-3): Reject S_VBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: New text:

"In multiple outlet systems al l ducts from the hood to the main shaft should take the shortest and most direct route." SUBSTANTIATION: Grease buildup accumulates quickest and closest to the source. By keeping the bleeder ducts short you decrease the surface area of this buildup. To intentionally allow a f i re to burn i t se l f out in the ductwork would require that the construction of the system be flawless, highly unlikely. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE ST~EMENT: The requirement is covered in existing language, subsection 3-1.2.

(Log #41) 96- 15 - (I-3): Reject SUBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C; RECOMMENDATION: New text:

"All multiple outlets should have the same type of manufactured l isted grease extractor hood with bui l t in f i re extlngui~hers systems and internal dampers." SUB3~A~T~_A_TION: I) I f al l systems are the same, then balancing the air flow would be eaiser to coordinate.

2) I f one contractor is responsible for manufacturing and instal l ing, then uniformity is maintained.

3) By using l isted grease extractors with bui l t in f i re suppression systems and dampers, should a f i re occur i t can more readily be isolated at the source and kept from being a potential hazard to other outlets. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The recommendation is outside the scope of the standard.

(Log #43) g6- 16 - (I-3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: New text:

"When cooking is done with fuel systems that cannot be automtically shut off (as gas or electric) such as briquettes hardwood and mesquite, those appliances must be vented separately." _SUBSTANTIATION: The volume of grease created by these types of systems is many times greater than that created by gas or electric cooking. In case of f i re, the fuel source cannot automatically be shut off. So the additional precaution of having this vented separately is reasonable. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add new I-3.1.1 as follows: I-3.1.1 All solid fuel cooking equipment shall be

served by a hood and duct system that is separate from all other exhaust systems. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The revised paragraph better reflects the intent of the submitter.

(Log #21) 96- 17 - (I-3.2 Exception Note (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: 3oseph N. Knapp, McDonald's Corporation BE~_OHMEN~A__T.LO_~: Add the following note to, or following the exception:

NOTE: The protection is to be applied to the combustible construction, not to the duct. The duct is NEVER to be wrapped direct ly with any materials as i t cannot then dissipate the heat as intended, and i t wi l l fa i l in a severe f i re.

SUBSTANTIATION: We find that there are many engineers, and many local f i re marshals who are s t i l l prescribing that the ducts be wrapped direct ly to provide the clearnce to combustibles. Many tests have shown that a direct ly wrapped duct wi l l fa l l in a severe f i re as i t cannot dissipate the heat as intended. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. C_OJ~HITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action 96-113 (Log #27) and 96-18 (Log #5).

(Log #5) 96- 18 - (I-3.2 Exception and Exeptions Nos. 2 and 3 (New)): Accept in Principle ~UBMITTER: Rodney A. McPhee, Canadian Wood Council RECOMMENDATION: a) Designate the existing Exception as Exception No. I and revise i t to read:

Exception No. 1: When the hood or grease extractor is l isted for lesser clearances.

b) Add a new Exception No. 2 to read: Exception No. 2: I f the combustible material is

provided with the following protection to al l surfaces within 18 in. (457 nun) clearances may be reduced to the distance indicated:

a) 28 gage sheet metal spaced out 1 in. (25.4 mm) on non- combustible spacers 9 in. (229 m)

b) 28 gage sheet metal on I/8 in. (3.2 mm) asbestos millboard spaced out 1 in. (25.4 mm) on noncombustible spacers

c) 22 gage sheet metal on I in. (25.4 mm) mineral wood batts reinforced with wire mesh or equivalent spaced out in I in. (25.4 mm) on noncombustible spacers

d) 28 gage sheet metal on I/4 in. (6.4 mm) insulating millboard.

c) Add a new Exception No. 3 to read: Exception No. 3: Where ducts are protected

internally with an approved automatic fixed extinguishing system, properly maintained, the clearance may be reduced to 6 in. (150 mm). SUBSTANTIATION: a) and b) The existing wording is • revised to c lar i fy the intent by separating the conditions where the 18 in. clearance can be reduced. The table showing alternatives for types of protection and subsequent reduction in clearances is included within the body of the Standard to c lar i fy intent that these methods of protection are in fact recognized as providing additional safety measures to reduce the hazard. This is similar to what is done in other NFPA standards where clearance from ducts is in question i.e. NFPA 31, 33 and 90B.

In al l of these referenced standards, tables showing Types of Protection and subsequent reduction in clearances are contained within the body of the standard, not in the appendix. (b) and (d) under Types of Protection in the proposal have been selected from the tables in these standards as additional alternatives for protecting the nearby combustible material.

9 in. (229 mm)

3 in. (76 mm)

12 in. (308 ram)

750

c) With a duct protected internal ly with a fixed automatic extinguishlng systems the hazard of f i r e growth and spread within the duct is substantially reduced. In view of this, the minimum clearance from the duct to combustible material should be allowed to be reduced.

The reduction from 18 in. to 6 in. is identical to that which is permitted in NFPA Standard 33, 34 and 91 (see Sections 5-10, 3-7, and 2-8.1 respectively in these standards).

See also changes proposed to 3-1.5.1, 3-5.1.3, A-I, and A-2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete existing Appendix A from the Standard. Revise I-3.2 as follows: I-3.2 Clearance. Hoods, grea:se extractors, and

ducts shall have a clearance of ,at least 18 in. (457.2 mm) to combustible material, 3 in. (76.2 mm) to llmited-combustlble, and 0 in. to noncombustible material. See figures showing examples in Appendix B,

Exception No. I: When the hood, duct, or grease extractor is l is ted for lesser Clearances.

Exception No. 2: Clearance to combustible material may be reduced i f the combustible material is protected as follows:

Clearance to Type of Combustible

Protection M¢terial

( a ) O.013-in. (O.33-mm) (28 gage) sheet metal spaced out I in. (25.4 mm) on non- cumbustible spacers.

g in. (228.6 mm)

(b) 0.027-in. (O.69-mm) 3 in. (76.2 mm) (22 gage) sheet metal on ] - in . (25.4-mm) mineral wool bats reinforced with wire mesh or equivalent spaced out l in. (25.4 mm) on noncombustible spacers.

Exception No. 3: Clearance to limited-combustible may be reduced to zero clearance'when protected by noncombustible material such as metal lath and plaster, ceramic or quarry t i l e .

Exception No. 4: Materials and products that ape l isted for the purpose of reducing clearance. These materials shall be installed in accordance with the condition of the l i s t i ng and the manufacturer's instructions.

NOTE: The protection methods for ducts to reduce clearance are to be applied to the combustible or limited-combustible construction, and not to the duct. The duct shall not be wrapped direct ly with any materials as the duct cannot dissipate heat from a f i r e as intended.' In the case of a severe f i r e the duct may f a i l . A duct may not be in direct contact For more than 50 percent of i ts perimeter with any materials.

Add new Appendix B figures (on next four pages). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee did not wish to increase the number of protection systems at this time; disagreed with the last exception of the recommendation; and ed i to r ia l l y the section was changed to include limited-combustible and noncombustible language.

(Log #44) 96- 19 - (I-3.2.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Phll Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. R~ECOMMENDATION: New text:

"When ducting runs horizontal ly above a removable sub-ceillng the sub-ceiling should be a minimum of 3 in. below the ductwork and of a f i r e rated materlal." SUBSTANTIATION: Many exhaust systems have horizontal sections which run through T-bar ceilings. In many cases T-bar ceilings are jammed t ight against the ductwork. I f there was a f i r e this could prove hazardous.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~ T E _ E STATEMENT: This requirement is already covered in I-3.2.

(Log #12) 96- 20 - (2-1.1 Exception): Reject ~ : Rodney A. HcPhee, Canadian Wood Council RECOMMENDATION: Delete the comma af ter the word "assemblies." SUBSTANTIATION: Edi tor ia l . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. C_OMMITTEE STATEMENT: NFPA style is for use of close punctuation and in this instance the clause is set o f f by a comma at the beginning and at the end.

(Log #67) 96- 21 - (2-1.2): Accept in Principle ~ : 3. S. Parikh, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. I~ECJ~.~{D~LQ~IIJZU: Revise f i r s t sentence to read:

"All seams, Joints and penetrations which form the enclosure including i ts lower outermost perimeter that directs and captures grease-laden vapors and exhaust gases shall have a l iquidt ight continuous external weld." SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed revision wi l l c la r i fy the continuous weld related requirement. The definlton of "Continuous External Weld" in the Standard excludes components such as f i l t e r support frames inside hoods from this requirement. By mentioning " . . . seams, jo ints. . . which form the enclosure . . ." and " . . . lower outermost . .. gases" that was included in this Committee's interpretations published in February, 1987 to c la r i fy this matter, as proposed, should serve the purpose. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise f i r s t sentence to read: "All seams, jo ints and penetrations of the hood

enclosure to i ts lower outermost perimeter that directs and captures grease-laden vapors and exhaust gases shall have a l iquidt ight continuous external weld." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Edi tor ia l ly revised.

( log #13) g6- 22 - (2-1.2 Exception and Exception No. 2 (New)): Accept in P r inc ip le SUBMITTER: Rodney A. McPhee, Canadian Wood Council RECOMMENDATION: Hake the l as t sentence of 2-1 .2 as a new Exception No. 1 to 2-1.2. Number the e x i s t i n g Exception to 2-1.2 as Exception No. 2. SUBSTANTIATION: The second sentence of the e x i s t i n g 2-1.2 is ac tua l l y an Exception to the requirements fo r penetrat ions spec i f ied in the f i r s t sentence and! is more c l e a r l y presented as an Exception instead of par t of the main requirement. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in P r i nc ip l e .

Revise 2-1.2 and except ions as fo l lows: 2-1.2 A l l seams, j o i n t s and penetrat ions of the hood

enclosure to i t s lower outermost per imeter that d i rec ts and captures grease-laden vapors and exhaust gases shal l have a l i q u l d t i g h t continuous external weld.

Exception No. 1: Penetrat ions shal l be permit ted to be sealed by other l i s t e d devices that are evaluated under the same condi t ions of f i r e seve r i t y as the hood or enclosure of l i s t e d grease ex t rac to rs , and whose presence does not de t rac t from the hood's or duct 's s t ruc tu ra l i n t e g r i t y . (See d e f i n i t i o n of continuous external weld in Section 1-2.)

Exception No. 2: See except ion to 3-1.1 above. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Edi tor ia l ly revised.

751

Appendix B SKETCH 1

I0'- O"

,.,.,.,_T I

\ \X\\

, I f - " ,

L1

1-3 ,2 : O" 'TO NON COMBUSTIBLE 3" ;TO LIHITED COMBUSTIBLE 18 '~ CL.~kNCE TO CO~USTZBLES

F.88 PROTECTED IN kCCOP~ANCE H EXCEPTION NO. 2 OR 3.

I

'~' A,

E~AU~T H O ~

S HINGED. L~ OISCH~GE

,..',

J 4O

" 18~..m.t..6.2. B

-1\~ \. \ \ L3-s.lIa :

- N O T LEftS THAN 18' CLE~AN~ TO C~'~U~TIBLES

- NOT LESS THAN fl" TO LINITED I~ NON C~B[LqTIBLEg.

IP-----3.-fi.2.~

N

\

\

X

N

X

N

N

\

\

N

iD--,-- I-3.Z : O" TO N~q CO~USTIBLE 3" TO LIMITB] COMBUSTIBLE IB" CLEARANCE TO ~O~tL~TIRI.ES UPCF.SS PROTECTED IN ACCOflDJU~CE WITH EXCEPTI~I NO. 2 OR 3,

TYPICAL. SECTTON VIEW

(FOR ONE £TORY B U I L D I N G )

7 5 2

Appendix B SKETCH 1.1

I0' - 'O"

3'-~, 1 : -'--.~_ ~ CONTINUOUS ENO.O~E

f,,~-\

I

I I

3-5.1,1 : NOT LE~ THAN I ~ " ~z~ ~IgT~:e ~ ~Loi~ " " ' : . . . . : ~ : : : ~ F " I :

3:5.t.2 • ~T LESS THAN 2 m ~ 1 / r - - F ~ ~ T ~ E FO~ eUi~Z~ II / /

; ~ ~A~ DI~AR~

'1 T 1 I\\\\\

3-5.1a. " - NOT L~S TH~ ~" CLl~ge~r.~

TO COHBLSTIBLE8 - NOT LE~ THAN 5" TO LIMIT~

NON CX}MBU$TIBLES.

- ~ - ~ -'~- " ~ SECOND STOP, Y

CEILING

1-3,2 ; - - f - o' To N~ CO~TZBLe 3" TO LIHITED COP&JgTIBLE 16' CLEARANCE TO ~ T Z ~ [ ~ UNL£S8 PROTECTED IN ACCORD/~ICE ¥ITH EXL'~PTION NO. 2 Off 3.

? I -

. ~

E~A~T

\ \ \ \ \ \ \

\

\ \ \ ) i, .

TYPICAL SECTION VIEW

(FOR TWO STORIES OR HORE) t

I-3.2 O" TO NON COI¢~T|BLE 3 ° TO LIHITE) c,ov~'rieLe 18" CLEARANCE TO CO~JSTIL~ L,~_E.~ P~TECTEO IN ACCOROANCE ¥[TH EXCEPTION NO. 2 OR 3.

753

Appendix B SKETCH 2

3"'6.2.2 ~ " " -- ~----EX]-IAUST FAN

,,,..,."

' ° . . . .

I -3 .2 : O" ~0 NON COHI3LISTIBLE 3" TO LINITL:D COHBUST,BLE I@' 'CLE~A~"E TO C~BU~TIBI.ES UNL~8S I'~qOTECT~D ZN ACC~DANCE

- NOT LESS Tt4AN 18" CLE~ANCE TO CO~USTISL.E9

- NOT LESS THAN 8' TO LIHITED OR NON COMBUSTIBLES.

' " ' 7

J

J

¥ITl:l EXI:EPTI~ NO 2 I~ 3.

(~-IAL~3T HOOD "---/ !

\ f \

\

\

\

\

\

\

\ %

>,--,.I-3.2 : O" TO NON COMBUSTIBLE 3" TO LIN~TI:n COHBUgTIBLE 18" C-.LEkI~ANCE TO C@,@~TIBLE@ UNLE@@ PROTECTED IN ACC~DANCE vI'rH EXCEPTION NO. 2 OR 3,

\

\

\ i . . . .

TYPICAL S E C T I O N VIEW

( F O R ONE STORY B U I L D I N G )

I

754

Appendix B SKETCH 2.1

3"6

.

~0'- O" O I ~:I4AF~

4O

4 \ \ , \ \ \ 3-'J.'l. | : NOT LE~ THAN i HFI FII~ RESISTANCE FOR BUlm nlNG LESS" THAN 4 STORIES IN I~IGH:f

I

3-5.1.2 : NOT LE&9 THAN 2 I-~ FI~ ~BIBTA~ FOR BUILDI~ 4 STOQIES OR MOPE IN ~IG~

O' TO NON CO~UgTTBLE 3" TO LIMITED COMBUSTIBLE 18" 'CLEAI~ANCE TO COMBUSTIBLE9 LE~.ESS PROTECTE~ IN A C C ~ L E ¥ITH EXCEPTION NO. 2 OR ] .

- ' / - - - 3 - 5 . 1 , / CONTINUOUS

\, ,,,, \ \ \ / -

/ - NOT LESS THAN IS" CLEAEJ~ZE

I

~' ^ I

E)O.IALBT

a . , , ,,

TYPICAL (FOR

ROOF

4J

",4 :X

I ',,, \ \ \ \ \

TO CONBLI~TIBLES - NOT LE59 THAN 6" TO LZMITEO

NON COH~JSTIELE$.

\ \

- - 1 - 3 . 2 O" TO NON C~TI~E 3" TO LIMITED COMBUSTIBLE 18" CLEARANCE TO CO~USTXBLE$ UNLC~ M:IOII:CT[D IN ACCOROANCE WITH EXCEPTION NO. 2 OR ~.

\ \ \

SECTION V :EW

TWO STORIES OR.HORE)

7 5 5

(Log #68) 96- 23 - (2-1.3 (New)): Accept ~ : 3. S. Parlkh, Underwrlters Laboratories Inc. RECOMMENDATXON: New text:

2-1.3 Insulation materials otheb than electr ical insulation shall have a flame spread rating of 25 or less when tested in accordance with test for Surface Burning Characteristics of BuilBing Materials, UL 723. Adhes!ves or cements usbd in the insta l la t ion of insulating materials shall comply with the above requirements when tested with the specific insulating material. S_U__B_STANT_I_ATION: Insulatibn is used in some hoods, especially in the make-up (supply) a i r plenum. However, flammability requirements For the insulation materials are not included in theStandard.

The proposal is intended to address this NFPA 9OA, Standard for the Instal lat ion of Air Conditioning and Ventilating Systems, 1985 Edition, requires coverings, l inings, panels and other materials used in duct systems to have a maximum flame spread ratln~ of 25. ' NFPA gOA, applles to supply a i r related portlons of the hoods and other components used in the systems addressed by this Standard. (Ref. NFPA 90A, paragraph l-2(d), A-1-Z(d), and E- I . I . Paragraphs A-1-2(d) and E-1.1 reference NFPA 96). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #3) 96- 24 - (2-3) : Reject ~UBMITTER: Wi11iam A. Robinson, S tu rd i -Bu t l t Food Service Ven t i l a t i on Products RECOMMENDATION: None. SUBSTANTIATION: The Fire News of February, 1987, in the NFPA Standards Act ion Formal In te rp re ta t ions had qu i te a sect ion on the design of Make Up a i r canopies. Quite an attempt was made to def ine and diagram the various ways to make a NFPA Hake Up A i r Canopy. This was qui te a help to those who design and make Make Up Canopies. However, we have some comments on designs C & H. We feel that you should reconsider the "no" answer given to meeting Code #96.

The most ef f ic ient type of Make Up Air Canopy is the style where the untempered Make Up Air is introduced into the room from two or more locations on the canopy, and part icular ly the style where the make up a i r is introduced into the kitchen from the canopy with an a i r curtain (down discharge) and also direct ly into the room from the front of the canopy (front discharge). (Designs C, E, F, G, H, & I) according to the Fire News of February 1987, page 7, this presents a f i re protection problem. Although i t is possible to insta l l a f i re damper at the point where the make Up alrduct enters the canopy, and thus to insta l l a f i re damper at the point where the make up a i r duct enters the canopy, and thus to comply with the code, I am not aware of any way of putting a f i re damper in the registers bn the front of the canopy that release a i r into the kitchen (front discharge). I do not feel that this actually presents a f i re protection problem as your , interpretation would indicate. I f the canopy has suff icient overhang over the cooking equipment, additional f i re dampers should not be necessary td. give the instal lat ion reasonable f i re protection (figure H) according to the "Manual of Industrial Hygiehe," to Col}Laln the heat generated by cooking equipment, the canopy proper must overhang the cooking equipment by 3 in. for every foot the canopy is abovoe the cooking equlment. This would mean that i f the canopy was hung at 6 f t 6 in. above the f loor, which 90 percent of a11 canopys are, the canopy should overhang the cooking equipment by 10-I/2 in. I f the canopy was not a Make Up Air Canopy, the actual f i re protection shielding of the externally welded construction of the canopy would end at the edge of the overhang (10-I/2 in. from the cooking equipmment). Any building construction beyond the overhang of the canopy would be exposed to any f i re that extended beyond the canopy. The Code does not deal with the f i re resistance of construction near the canopy, (beyond f i re clearance) nor does i t deal with that area in the kitchen direct ly in front of the canopy.

What would be the object ion of a11owlng an ex te rna l l y welded canopy, with. an a i r cur ta in down discharge, and f ron t discharge where the make up a i r chamber does not I~ave ex te rna l l y welded construct ion and f i r e dampers, t f the a t r cur ta in was outside o f , the speci f ied overhang of the canopy? (Figure H) This would give the kitchen c e i l l h g less exposure to a f i r e extending outside the canopy than i f the canopy was not there. The make up a i r chamber of the canopy, being constructed of metal, would provide more of a flame barr ier than open space. Please see drawings below.

DRAWING "A"

Drawing showing a Code #96 Seamlessly welded canopy with th,. r~,qulr~d overhang.

Dark Line represents seamless ~ l ded construct ion

False Cei l ln 9

Required 0verhan 9

I Cook Inq Equ i prnen t

DRAWING I'D"

Drawing showing a Make Up A i r canopy wi th a i r cur ta in and ro~n louvers, with a 5eamlessly ~elded insert having th~ s~mu overhang as Drawing "A", which is c,,rren! ly not considered acceptable. Drawing shows that there Is no more exposure wi th a make up a i r p lent~ than wi thout . Request considerat ion for Code 196 acceptance.

False Cei l ing

Dark l ine represents seamless welded construct ion

1 Make Up A i r Cha~zlbe¢ wi th A i r Curtain and Louwrs to r o ~

.......... Not Seamless welded c~st ruc t ion

Requl red 0re rhang

Cooking Equipment

This would s lmp l l f y the bu i ld ing of those canopies, reduce costs, remove the ob ject ion of requi r ing nonexistant or very d l f f l c u l t to obtain f i r e damper g r i l l s , and give more f i r e p ro tec t ion than a standard exhaust only canopy. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposal was not in proper format and did not recommend a spec i f i c change in Standard 96.

756

(Log #112) 96- 25 - (2-3, 2-3.1, 2-3.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances E E ~ _ M M ~ : Revise the t i t l e of Section 2-3 as follows:

2-3 Exhaust Hood Assemblies with Integrated Supply Air Plenums.

Revise "2-1.1" to "2-I" in 2-3.1 so that revised subsection reads as follows:

2-3.1 The construction and size of these hoods shall comply with the requirements of Sections 2-I and 2-2.

Revise 2-3.1.2 as follows: 2-3.1.2 A fire-actuated damper shall be installed in

the supply air'plenum at each point where a supply air duct inlet or a supply air outlet penetrates the continuously welded shell of the assembly. The damper shall be constructed of at least the same gage as the she11. The actuation device shall have a maximum temperature rating of 285°F (141°C). Supply ai r plenums that discharge air out their face rather than out the bottom or into the exhaust hood and wMch are isolated from the exhaust hood by the continuously welded shell extending to the lower outermost perimeter of the entire hood assembly do not require a fire-actuated damper. See Appendix A, A-2-3.1.2 for examples.

Add figures to Appendix A as A-2-3.1.2, Figures A-2-3.1.Z(a) through A-2-3.1.2(J) below. SUBSTANTIATION: To c lar i fy requirements for exhaust hood assemblies with integrated supply ai r plenums and to incorporate previous formal interpretations on the subject into the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #73) 96- 26 - (2-3.1.2): Accept in Principle $L/BMITTER: Philip O. Morton, Gaylord Industries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add a second sentence to read:

"The f i re damper actuation device shall be within the temperature classification of 160°F to 285°F. ''

~UB~TANTIATIO~: Specification of temperature ratings of actuation devices would be consistent with NFPA gOA (air conditioning systems) paragraph 3-3.7.1.6. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Change new sentence as fn 96-25 (Log #112). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Better reflects the intent Of the Committee.

(Log #102) 96- 27 - (2 -3 .1 .2 ) : Reject ~_UB_I~_T_T_ER: D. E. Overton, Knoxv i l l e , TN RECOMMENDATION: Delete Section 2-3.1.2.

A f i r e -ac tua ted damper of at leas t the same gage as the hood shal l be i n s t a l l e d in the supply plenum at the same plane as the external weld. SUBSTANTIATION: ! Let the A i r Flow Hinlmlze the Leading Cause of Fire Deaths !

A f i r e damper, i f closed in the supply plenum of an in tegrated hood, w i l l stop the f low of replacement a i r . . and, i t then fo l lows, the e f fec t iveness of the hoods exhaust system to remove hot t ox i c smoke can be reduced up to e ighty percent (80%).

I t is recognized: 1. The leading cause of f i r e deaths is the :

i nha la t lon of t ox i c gases. 2. I t has not been demonstrated that a l lowing a

cooking grease f i r e to enter the exhaust and/or supply duct of an in tegra ted hood is a des l rab le f i r e p ro tec t ion design feature . However, the l e a d i n g medlcal cause of f i r e deaths is the inha la t lon of hot tOXiC gases; there fore , in l i eu of uncont ro l led tox i c gases released in to a bu i l d i ng , i t is des i rab le to conf ine a l l the t ox i c residue from a grease f i r e to w i th in a q u a l i f i e d exhaust system.

3, The system required by NFPA 96 to v e n t i l a t e commercial cooking processes is ( * ) l im i t ed but q u a l i f i e d to remove hot t ox i c gases t ha t could otherwise be hazardous.

Appendix A

I I I L I l l l I i I I I I

i i i I _ I I I i I I ~ I I

I / / / / / /

ij LJI I , 1,, L..L.I " / / / ~JIIIIIIILU " H ~ I i i i I I i i i

/ " _ :__

= CONTINUOUS LIQUID-TIGHT WELDED CONSTRUCTION

- - GREASE-TIGHT CONSTRUCTION FIRE ACTUATED DAMPER

MULTI-BLADE FIRE ACTUATED DAMPER

HHIlU REGISTER/PER FORATED PANE L

757

(a) Hoods and duct system wil l survive a cooking f i re test without severe warping or damage.

(b) The exhause duct enclosure is f i re rated for at least one (1) hour.

(c) All ducts are installed without forming dips or traps which might collect residues.

(d) Hoods, grease removal devices, fan, ducts and other appurtenances shall be cleaned at frequent intervals prior to surfaces becoming heavily contaminated with grease or oi ly sludge.

(e) The air volume required to ventilate cooking processes wi l l remove a large volume, not a l l , or the heat and smoke generated by a grease f i re; evacuation time is increased. (The evacuation time can be further increased by additional a i r flow .. . a second exhaust and replacement ai r fan to actuated when there is a f i re.)

(f) All of the afore is the backup to a l isted f i re extinguishing system.

4. Obviously, without a fire-activated damper in the supply inlet collar of an integrated hood, the NFPA 96 un-qualified supply duct is exposed to the heat of a grease f i re; however, (I) the inlet a i r flow inhibits grease vapor entry ( i .e . , "nothing in the duct to burn") .. and .. (2) a UL #710 Burn-Out Test to the hood below demonstrates the inlet a i r flow inhibits the W entry of excessive heat into the supply duct.

"MIN-AIRE" HOOD 7Q~ untempered mdu~up aWr is cli~ibuted Imt l ly down~lwd lind inward to lUel~mltt di. met contact with O¢~Nlnta of the kitchen and bkmd with 30% maka.up al~ passing ov~ the ¢m~cinll oquipmqm! ca~yinll hot la~m ¢ookinll ~ N n . The md~un ~ motion mmoMn all the mixture ~ the f ~ l entrarco arw of I lw mm~nOlW I~od. Th~ h~c l W m m is ~'w ultlmaW in em.W mnwnrmian and b in eompl~nco with

1. Engin~ring Pmcticm 2. euiJdintlend F/mC~da

. . . . . . . " . . "?

Scenario

All of the inter ior surface below the supply collar inlet were coated with grease to obtain a loading of 0.3 Ibs per sq f t . There was no fire-activated damper in the supply a i r inlet opening.

Grease in a pan located to produce the most cr i t ica l condition on a broi ler was heated to approximately 600 degrees and ignited. Following ignition, no attempt was made to extinguish the f i re. The f i re was allowed to burn out normally.

The UL #710 and NFPA 96 un-qualified supply duct survived the f i re without severe warping or damage.

! Let the Air Flow Minimize the Leading Cause of Fire Deaths !

(*) needs exhaust and replacement ai r at sufficient level to remove all of the toxic gases. See 3,e. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The requirement for a fire-actuated damper in the supply plenum of hoods with integrated outside make-up air has been discussed extensively by committee and the committee feels that the damper is required for firesafety.

(Log#74) 96- 28 - (2-4): Reject SUBMITTER: Philip O. Morton, Gaylord Industries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change the paragraph to read as follows:

"Listed hood assemblies shall be constructed in accordance with the terms of their l is t ing and the manufacturers instructions." SUBSTANTIATION: Chapter 2 deals with construction of hoods and therefore, 2-4 should relate to construction not instal lat ion of hoods. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Construction of hoods is covered under 2-I.

(Log #106) 96- 29 - (3-1.4 and 3-4.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances RECOMMENDATION: Delete the Exception after 3-1.4 and delete subsection 3-4.3. SUBSTANTIAT[ON: The Committee fe l t that residue traps had not proven to be practical due to low operating temperatures. Also, the instal lat ion of residue traps provides a false sense of security. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #75) 96- 30 - (3-1.4.1 (New)): Reject ~ : Philip O. Morton, Gaylord Industries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add a new paragraph 3-1.4.1 to read as follows:

"All horizontal ducts shall slope not less than I/4 in. per lineal f t towards the hood or residue trap. Where horizontal ducts exceed 75 f t in length the slope shall not be less than I in. per lineal f t . " ~.U_~LIA~I~_I_~T_I~Qff: Horizontal ducts without a slope could collect residues. The intent of 3-1.4 is to have duct systems tha t w i l l not c o l l e c t res idues. The proposal would be consistent with the UMC Sec. 2002, 3,b. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee feels that this recommendation is not practical in most cases.

(Log #6) 96- 31 - (3 -1 .5 thru 3 - 1 . 5 . 2 ) : Accept in P r i nc i p l e in Part SUBMITTER: Rodney A. McPhee, Canadian Wood Council RECOMMENDATION: Existing Sections 3-1.5.1 and 3-1.5.2 should be deleted and 3-1.5 revised to read:

3-1.5 Clearance. Clearance between ducts and combustible materials shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of Section I-3.2. SUBSTANTIATION: This change is made to remove a redundant reference to clearance requirements between ducts and combustible material. Section I-3.2 already specifies the minimum requirements. The proposed revision to I-3.2 wi l l now include the options of protecting the combustible material or the duct internally by an automatic fixed extinguishing system both of which wi l l consequently a11ow reductions in the clearance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

Revise 3-1.5.1 as per recommendation, but continue 3-1.5.2 so that 3-1.5 reads as follows:

3-1.5 Clearance 3-1.5.1 Clearance between ducts and combustible

materials shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of Section I-3.2.

3-I.5.2 For l isted grease ducts, see Section 3-2. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the intent of the submitter, but fe l t i t necessary to maintain the reference to 3-2.

(Log #104) 96- 32 - (3-1.5 and 3-1.6.2.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances RECOMMENDATION: Add new 3-1.5 as follows:

3-1.5 All inter ior surfaces of ducts shall be accessible for cleaning and inspection purposes. Openings required for accessibility shall comply with 3-3 Openings. (Revised from 3-1.6).

Renumber existing 3-1.5 Clearance to 3-2. Revise 3-1.6.2.1 to read: "3-1.6.2.1 On horizontal ducts at least one 20 in. x

20 in. opening shall be provided for personnel entry. When an opening of this size is not possible, openings large enough to permit thorough cleaning shall be provided at 12 f t intervals. SUBSTANTIATION: A complete revision of sections on openings was considered necessary to reflect actual cleaning and inspection practices and to give better guidelines on placement and spacing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

758

(Log #22) 96- 33 - (3-I.6.1): Accept in Principle ~UBMIT_~_!J.L~_R: Joseph N. Knapp, McDonald's Corporation RECOMMENDATION: Change the wording to the following:

"An opening large enough to pennlt inspection and cleaning shall be provided in any duct section that is otherwise inaccessible from the duct entry or discharge." SUBSTANTIATIOff: We are sometimes required to instal l two cleanout doors on ducts with :;light offsets between the hood and fan. With a fan that tips back these ducts are readily inspected and cleaned from above and below without the need of these doors. Most ducts are now cleaned with a high pressure steam hose system from above, which does not use the doors at a l l . Their instal lation is an unnecessary expense, and increases the risk of grease leakage and f i re hazard. When enclosed in a chase area, the chase must also have an access at extra expense, and at the possibi l i ty of f i re escape i f the panels are used and not properly re-installed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Make the proposed language an exception to 3-I.6.1 as follows:

Exception: Portions of the duct that are accessible from the duct entry or discharge. ~MMIT~E_M~NT: The Committee wanted to retain the original wording in 3-I.6.1. The intent of the submltter has been met.

(Log #46) 96- 34 - (3-1.6.1.1 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: New text:

• "An access panel should be installed in the duct no more than 6 in. above the top of ,any and all types of self-cleaning hoods." SUBSTANTIATION: The majority of self-cleaning hoods employ either baffles or dampers to adjust the air flow and/or close off the hood from the duct in case of f ire. Others have a upper chamber in the self cleaning hood which is inadequately accessible for proper cleaning. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Change new subparagraph to read as follows: 3-I.6.1.I For l isted hoods with dampers in the

exhaust collar, an access panel for cleaning and inspection shall be provided in the duct or the hood collar. This panel shall be as close to the hood as posslble but not to exceed 3 f t . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Committee agreed with the submitter but changed the requirement to better suit the intent of the Committee and the language and terminology used elsewhere in the standard.

(Log #48) 96- 35 - (3-1.6.1.2 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: New text:

"On fans that are not the termination of the system i.e..ductwork continues on after the fan, access should be provided on both sides of the fan;" SUBSTANTIATION: W~thout access you can not properly clean the fan. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add new text as follows: 3-1.6.1.2 Exhaust fans with ductwork connected to

both sides shall have access for cleaning .and inspection within 3 f t on each side of the fan. C~MMITTEE STATEMENT: Better reflects the intent of the submitter

(Log #33) 96- 36 - (3-1.6.2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Larry Stahl, Hardee's Food Systems, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change the wording to the.following:

"Openings shall be at the sides of the duct, or in the end of the ducts."

~_~BSTANTIAT_I_Q~: Code of f ic ia ls wi l l not permit cleanouts on the end of the ducts where they go vertical because Section 3-1.6.2.1 states "side of duct." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Change paragraph 3-I.6.1 as follows: 3-1.6.1 Openings shall be provided at the sides or

at the top of the duct, whichever is more accessible, and at changes of direction. O C_O_~MITTEE STATEMENT: Wording more suitable to the

intent of the Committee.

(Log #45) 96- 37 - ( 3 - 1 . 6 . 2 . 3 ) : Accept in P r i n c l p l e ~ : Phi l Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: Renumber e x i s t i n g 3 -1 .6 .2 .3 to 3 -1 .6 .2 .4 .

New t e x t : "Ductwork which is less than 20 in . ho r i zon ta l bY 16

in . v e r t l c a l shou ld have openings which are at l e a s t 16 in . ho r i zon ta l by 12 in . v e r t i c a l every 10 f t . These openings should be on the s ides o f the ductwork wnerever poss ib le . In the case o f v e r t i c u a l ductwork o f the above s i ze , openings should be prov ided on each f loor. With ductwork greater than both 20 in. horizontal and 16 in. vert ical, access in the horizontal section should be every 20 - 30 f t . On vertical sections of ductwork openings should be large enough to physically descend for cleaning purposes." SUBSTANTIATION: The primary methods for cleaning~ ductwork are scraping or pressure working. In the use of ductwork 20 in. x 16 in. or less, access is required every I0 f t to get at al l surface areas of the ductwork with extension scrapers or pressure wands. At any more than 10 f t you get insufficient pressure to break'the surface tension of the grease, when ductwork is greater than 20 in. x 16 in. the ductwork can most effectively be cleaned by being crawled. In the case of vertical ductwork a man is lowered by a cable (Really.') Access is defini tely needed to do this properly and safely. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 3-1.6.2.4 as follows: 3-1.6.2.4 On vertical ductwork where personnel entry

is possible, access shall be provided at the top of the vertical riser to accommodate descent. Where "personnel entry is not possible, adequate access' for cleaning shall be provided on each floor. CO.M.MITTEE STATEMENT: Better expresses-the intent of the submitter. Horizontal ductwork is addressed in 96-32 (Log #I04).

(Log #76) 96- 38 - ( 3 - 1 . 6 . 2 . 3 ) : Accept in P r i n c l p l e SUBHITTER: P h i l i p O. Morton, Gaylord I n d u s t r i e s , Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add a second sentence tha t reads as f o l l o w s :

"Covers sha l l be fastened wi th 1/4 i n . carbon or s t a i n l e s s s tee l screws in each corner and around the per imeter on no more than 4 in . cen te rs . " SUBSTANTIATION: From f i e l d exper ience, we have seen covers secured wi th aluminum screws. Screws or o ther f as ten ing devices should meet the same mater ia l requirements as the covers. The 1/4 in . s ize and the 4 in . spacing would he cons is ten t w i th Figure 3-3. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in P r i n c i p l e .

Revise 3 -1 .6 .2 .3 as f o l l o w s : 3 -1 .6 .2 .3 Covers sha l l be o f the same mater ia l ' and

th ickness as the duct. Covers sha l l have a gasket or sea lan t tha t i s rated f o r 150O°F and sha l l be grease t i g h t . Fasteners used to secure the covers, such' as b o l t s , weld studs, la tches or wing nuts sha l l be carbon s tee l or s t a i n l e s s and sha l l not penet ra te duct wa l l s .

Except ion: L is ted grease duct access door assemblies (covers) sha l l be i n s t a l l e d in accordance wi th the terms o f the l i s t i n g and the manufac tu rer ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Be t t e r r e f l e c t s the i n t e n t of the Committee.

759

(Log #49) 96- 39 - (3-1.6.2.5 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Phll Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMEN~N: New text:

"Access panels should be gasketed with approved silicone caulking with 2000UF rated gasket or sealant." SUBSTANTIATION: Many access panels today are not being recaulked after being removed for cleanlng. The material that should be used is the same material that is used to attach the hood to the duct (where necessary). ~ ITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Action on 96-38 (Log #76).

(Log #113) g6- 43 - (Figure 3-3): Accept ~_U_BMITTER: Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances RECOMMENDATION: a) Change "Min. 4" (~ " to "Maximum 4" ¢ ".

b) Revise "Joint with 2000°F Rated Gasket or Sealant" to "Oolnt with 1500°F Rated Gasket or Sealant". SUBSTANTIATION: a) Editorlal correction.

b) Revised temperature rating requirement for gasket or sealant reflecting Task Group report on materials available and a review of grease duct/exhaust system f i re test data. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #51) 96- 40 - (3-1.6.2.6 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: New tex t :

"At or ig ina l i ns ta l l a t i on of ductwork clean out covers should be grease t igh t when in place and fastened with a maximum of four securing devices such as bol ts, latches or wing nuts of high qua l i t y . " SUBSTANTIATION: Access panels are best ins ta l led during the fabrication of the ductwork. At that time these access panels can have properly machined fasteners attached to the ductwork or the access panel. The fewer fasteners required to properly seal the system the better. When re t ro- f l t t ing access panels attaching belts, wing nuts and catches becomes overly complicated. COM~!~!~E__~CTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Action on 96-38 (Log #76).

(Log #47) 96- 41 - (3-1.6.4 (New)): Accept in Principle ~ : Phll Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: New text:

"When ductwork is conoealed by finished building materials proper f i re rated doors should be installed on tile finished wall to access the clean outs." SUBSTANTIATION: You need access to the installed access panels. Many times other contractors are used and they are not aware that there is access into the ductwork which needs to be properly accommodated on the finished surface. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Change existing language in 3-1.6.3 by adding "and duct cleaning" after devices, change "permitted" to "provided", and change "provided" to "and shall" to read as follows:

3-1.6.3 Openings for instal lat ion, servicing, and inspection of l isted f i re protection system devices and duct cleaning shall be provided in ducts and enclosures and shall conform to the requirements of 3-1.6.2 and 3-5.1.5. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Changes indicated were considered to be adequate without addressing finished building materials specifically.

(Log #50) 96- 42 - (3-1.6.4.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: New text:

"A sign should be placed on access panels stating "Do Not Obstruct Opening." SUBSTANTIATION: In the construction of new buildings contractors other than the ductwork instal ler are generally using the same area as a chase to turn conduit, pipes, plumbing and drains which often obstruct access to the clean out openings. CO~_H_HITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The recommended signs are considered by the Committee to be inappropriate and impractical. The Committee feels that accessibil ity is necessary but can best be included in another section of 96.

(Log #77) 96- 44 - (3-3.2.1): Accept in Principle ~I_T_T.F~R: Philip 0. Morton, Gaylord Industries, Inc. RECOMMENDATIOB: Revise the entire paragraph as follows:

3-3.2.1 All seams, Joints, and penetrations shall have a l lquid-t lght continuous external weld. The connection of the duct to the hood duct collar shall be a l lquidt lght continuous external weld or the connection of the duct direct ly to the hood shall be a method such as that shown in Figure 3-3. SUBSTANTIATION: 3-3.2.1 as currently written is confusing and contradictory. The f i r s t sentence of this paragraph implies that connection to a listed venti lator does not need td be continuously welded, however, the f i r s t part of the second sentence says that the connection shall be a l iquidt ight external weld. U.L. Test Standard 710 does not include testing for duct collar connections to a duct. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 3-3.2.1 as follows: 3-3.2.1 All seams, joints, penetrations and duct to

hood collar connections shall have a l iquid-t ight continuous external weld.

Exception No. I: Duct to hood collar connections as shown in" figure 3-3 shall be permitted.

Exception No. 2: Penetrations shall be permitted to be sealed by other l isted devices that are evaluated under the same conditions of f i re severity as the hood or enclosure of l isted grease extractors, and whose presence does not detract from the hood's or duct's structural integrity.

Delete existing 3-3.2.2 from Standard 96. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Changes meet the intent of the submltter with organizational changes to include 3-3.2.2 as an exception 3-3.2.1.

(Log #7) 96- 45 - (3-3.2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Rodney A. McPhee, Canadian Wood Council RECOMMENDATION: Delete the word "also" in the f i rs t sentence of the wording and make the entire wording an Exception to 3-3.2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: This "may" statement is actually an Exception to the "shall" requirement of 3-3.2.1 and is more clearly expressed as an Exception to the minimum requirement in 3-3.2.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Action 96-44 (Log #77).

(Log #52) 96- 46 - (3-3.2.3 (New)): Accept in Pr inciple SUBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. R E C _ O ~ _ E ~ : New tex t :

"Al l hinges, bol ts , f i t t i n g s and attachments must be of compatible metal so that the e lec t ro lys is or corrosion w i l l not resu l t . " SUBSTANTIATION: This w i l l assist in maintaining the i n teg r i t y of the overal l system. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inc ip le. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Action 96-38 (Log #76).

760

(Log #78) 96- 47 - (3-4 .1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Philip O. Morton, Gaylord Industries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add the following at the end of the f i rs t sentence:

"Supports shall be constructed of the same material and thickness as the duct. Bolts, screws, rivets and other mechanical fasteners shall not penetrate duct walls. Clearance of any vertical or horizontal ducts shall be no less than 18 in. from combustible materials." SUBSTANTIATION: I f duct supports; were constructed-of a material of lesser strength than that of the duct, the supports could collapse during a f i re conditioh allowing vertical ducts to fa l l (~gainst the building or away from the building onto other structures or allow horizontal duc~s to fa l l onto the roof of the building.

The 18 in. clearance requirement would be consistent with 3-5.1.3 and 3-6.1.3 Exception No. 2. CO MMLTT_E~CTION: Accept ~n Principle.

Delete f i r s t sentence of proposal. Add new proposed second sentence to the f i r s t

sentence of existing 3-4.] in the standard and a revised third sentence so that 3--4;I reads as follows:

3-4.1 The vertical portion of exhaust ducts shall be connected to the horizontal portion of the duct system and shall be installed and adequately supported on the exterior of a building. Dolts, screws, rivets and other mechanical fasteners shall not penetrate duct walls. Clearance of any vertical or horizontal ducts to combustible material shall comply with I-3.2. ¢ ~ ! I g E STATEMENT: Requirements for support material is covered elsewhere in the standard. The intent of the submltter has otherwise been met.

(Log #92) 96- 48 - (3-4.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Donald L. Gril les, New England Ventilation Technologies RECOMMENDATION: Revised text:

"Unpainted galvanized steel should be an acceptable material for exterior use in construction of ducts, curbs, supports and etc." / S~$_TANTIATION: As long as welds and seams, where the galvanized coating is disturbed in the fabrication process are painted, I can see no reason for requiring painting of galvanzied steel. COM_MI~!EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The standard adequately addresses this issue.

(Log #79) 96- 49 - (3-4.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Philip O. Morton, Gaylord Industries, Inc. REC_OMMENDATION: Change the paragraph as follows:

"A residue trap shall be provided at the base of each vertical riser with provisions for cleanouts in accordance with 3-I.6." SUBSTANTIATION: To clar i fy and ensure that the referenced cleanout opening complies with 3-1.6.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Technical Committee Proposal 96-29 (Log #I06).

(Log #91) 96- 50 - (B-5.1): Accept in Principle SU~MIT_T.EB.: Philip O. Morton RECOMMENDATION: Reword as follows:

"In al l buildings more than one story in height, and in one-story buildings where the roof or roof-ceiling assembly is required to have a f i re resistance rating, the ducts shall be enclosed in a continuous enclosure extending from the ceiling above the hood, through any concealed spaces, to or through the roof so as to maintain the integrity of tile f i re separations required by the applicable building code provisions. The enclosure shall be sealed around the duct at the point of penetration at the ceil ing and vented to the exterior through weather protected openings where the enclosure terminates at the exhaust fan. The enclosure shall conform to the following:"

SUBSTANTIATION: The current paragraph does not address sealing or venting of the enclosure and thus i architects, engineers, designers and code enforcement of f ic ia ls have no guidance as to what should be done. Sealing the enclosure at the penetration of the ceiling would prevent flames from entering the enclosure'if the f i re escaped the confines of the hood. Venting the enclosure at the point of termination would allow hot expanding air, created by heat radiated from the duct during a f i re condition, to escape the enclosure. The proposed method of sealing and venting parallels requirements of UMC paragraph 2002, 3,(d). [ COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise new second sentence to read as follows: i "The enclosure shall be sealed . . • and Vented to

the exterior of the building through weather protected openings. ~Q_MMITTEE STATEMENT: More accurately meets submitter's intent.

(Log~ #8) 96- 51 - (3-5.1.3): Reject ~i ~UTB_FtT~_T_~_~: Rodney A. McPhee, Canadian Wood Council R E ~ E J ~ _ ~ : Revise 3-5.1.3 to read:

3-5.1.3 Clearance from the duct to the interior surface of the enclosure shall not be less than 6 in. (152mm). SUBSTANTIATION: The present requirements for 18 in. • clearances from a combustible enclosure having a ' f l re resistance rating of at least one hour is overly restrict ive. This enclosure is required to be ! constructed to meet a minimum performance in thel standard f i re endurance test (NFPA 251, ASTM E-119). This includes l imit ing both temperature and flame transmission through the assembly after l hour exposure to the standrd time/temperature curve. This is considered much more severe exposure than could be expected from a grease f i re in a duct system. The duration of a grease f i re within a duct would not be expected to last for an hour nor would the temperature within the enclosure be expected to reach and remain at the levels experienced in the standard f i re test.

In view of this the clearances for al l rated enclosures, regardless of type of construction should be the same. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This proposal is rejected by Committee because i t is recognized that the enclosure - even though f i re rated - can be bui l t of combustible material. Also a grease duct f i re of indeterminate duration can be more severe than the ASTM E119 exposure under certain conditions based on limited practical experience.

(Log #35) 96- 52.- (3-5.1.3): Reject ~ } _ U ~ : David A. Latanision, Thermal Ceramics RECOMMENDATION: Reference the upcoming meeting of NFPA 96 Committee. The current code does not addressl the use of " f i re proof" insulation materials applied! directly to the duct to reduce clearance to combustible materials.

NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.

SUBSTANTIATION: Fire testing at Thermal Ceramics Research & Development Laboratory has proven that a duct constructed per 3-3 wrapped as outlined in Attachment #I could be used to provide zero clearance to combustible materials. This test was modeled after Underwriters Laboratory proposed test procedure for wrap systems. Thermal Ceramics would l ike to present this information to the Committee for consideration prior to f inal izing revisions to NFPA 96.

NOTE: In the real world this construction would provide a much better solution to some of the existing practices being accepted on new and rennovation projects.

761

Thermal Ceramics is plannlng to test this system at an independent test agency in the near future to 9aln further market acceptance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See g6-18 (Log #5) and g6-I13 (Log #27).

96- 53 - (3-5.1.3): Reject (Log #80) .~UB_~tIT__~R: Philip O. Morton, Gaylord Industries, Inc'. ~ECOMMENDATION: Revise f i r s t sentence to read as follows:

"Clearnace from the duct to the in ter io r surface of enclosures shall not be more than 12 in. or less than 6 ~n." SUBSTANT_IATIQ_N: 3-5.1.3 references enclosures of combustible construction. However, 3-5.1, 3-5.].1 and

3-5.1.2 clearly states that enclosures must have a f i re rating of | or 2 hours and therefore, reference to combustible construction should be omitted. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See 96-51 (Log #8).

(Log #111) 96- 54 - (3-5.1.3): Accept ~UBM__ITTgR: Technical Committee 'on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances R ~ O M M ~ : Add the words "or limited-combustible" between "noncombustible" and "construction" of f i r s t sentence.

Delete "Appendix A" from the second sentence of 3-5.1.3 and substitute the reference "I-3.2". SUBSTANTIATION: To correct terminology and references per Proposal g6-18 (Log #5) and 96-9 (Log #llO). COMM_ITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Lo~ #23) 96- 55 - (3-5.1.3 Note 2 (New)): Accept in Principle ~ : 3oseph N. Knapp, McDonald's Corporation RECOMMENDATION: Add the following as a second note after the existing note. Identify existing note as NOTE I.

NOTE 2: I t is not permitted to direct ly wrap the ducts in l ieu of the chase. The chase permits the heat to radiate from the duct. When the duct is direct ly wrapped, the heat cannot dissipate, and the duct wi l l fa l l in a severe f i re .

SUBSTANTIATION: We find that there are many engineers, and many local f i re marshals who are s t i l l prescribing that the ducts be wrapped direct ly in l leu of providing the radiating space within a chase. Many tests have shown that a direct ly wrapped duct wi l l fa l l in a severe f i re as i t cannot dissipate the heat as intended. ~_Q~LM_~TTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Action on 96-113 (Log #27) and 96-]8 (Log #5).

(Log #I) 96- 56 - (3-6): Reject ~LB__~U_T_F~: Terry Wong, City of Vancouver ~ECOMMENDATION: New text for food court exhaust systems and conventinal systems:

"Ducting requirements for ecoleglzer type units" (a) Type of insta l la t ion permitted? (b) Fire suppression requirements? Renumber existing 3-6 Termination of Ducts.

~UB_S_TANTIATION: "Garland Ecologlzer units approved by ULC have been allowed to use Conventinal H.V.A.C. duct rather than al l welded steel duct for kitchen exhuast duct. COMMITTEE AqTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Insuff icient data and technical information.

f

J /

i j

er = P . , ~ , .

/ ~ / / / c

F( L'FE~. / ~ ;'T-

*F i re Dampers required since a i r is t reated as normal clean a i r , there fore normal bu i l d lng cede HVAC rules would apply.

NOTE: Contray to basic k i tchen exhaust standards i . e . no dampers.

762

(Log # 108) 96- 57 - (3-6): Accept S I/BMITTER: Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 3--6 Termination of Ducts as follows:

3-6 Termination of Exhaust System. 3-6.1 The exhaust system shall terminate as follows: 3-6.1.1 Outside the building with a fan or duct.

NOTE" I t is preferable for the fan to be at or as close to the end of the duct as possible in order to minimize the amount of pre~;surized duct joints and cleanouts through which grease might leak more easily).

3-6.1.2 Through the roof as in Section 3-6.2, or through a wall as in Section 3-6.3.

3-6.2 Rooftop Terminations. 3-6.2.1 Rooftop terminations shall be as follows: 3-6.2.2 With a minimum of lO f1:(3.05 m) of

clearance from the outlet to adjacent buildings, property lines, and air intakes. When space limitations absolutely prevent a 10 f t (3.05 m) horizontal separation from an air intake, a vertical separation wi l l be acceptable with the exhaust outlet being a minimum of 3 f t (.92 m) above any air intake located within lO f t (3.05 m) horizontally.

3-6.2.3 With the exhaust flow directed up and away from the surface of the roof, and a minimum of 40 in. (]016 mm) above the roof surface.

3-6.2.4 With the ab i l i t y to drain grease out of any traps or low points formed in the fan or duct near the termination of the system to a rainproof collection container or to a remote grease trap.

3-6.2.5 With a l isted grease duct complying with Section 3-2, or with ductwork complying with Section 3-3, or,

3-6.2.6 With a hinged up-discharge fan that is l isted for commercial cooking equipment, provided the ductwock extends a minimum of 18 in. (457.Z mm) above the roof surface and the fan discharges a minimum of 40 in. (1016 mm) above the roof surface, or,

3-6.2.7 With other approved fan, provided, (a) i t meets the requirements of Sections 3-6.2.4 and 5-I, and (b) i t ' s discharge or i t ' s extended duct discharge meets the requirements of Section 3-6.2.3.

3-6.3 Wall Terminations. 3-6.3.] Wall termainations shall be as follows: 3-6.3.2 Through a masonry wall with a minimum of 10

f t (3.05 m) of 'clearance From the outlet to adjacent buildings, property lines, grade level, combustible construction, electrical equipment or lines, and the closest point of any air intake at or below the plane of the exhaust termination. The closest point of any air intake above the plane of the exhaust termination shall be a minimum of lO f t (3.05 m) distant, plus 0.25 f t (0.076 m) per each one (I) degree from horizontal, the angle of degree being measured from the center of the exhaust termination to the center of the air intake. See Figure 3-6.3.2 next page.

3-6.3.3 With the exhaust flow directed perpendicularly outward from the wall face, or upward.

3-6.3.4 With al l the ductwork pitched to drain the grease back to the hood(s), or with a drain provided to bring the grease back to a container within the building, or to a remote grease trap.

3-6.3.5 With a listed grease duct complying with Section 3-2, or other ducts complying with Section 3-3, or,

3-6.3.6 With an approved fan, provided, (a) i t meets the requirements 9f Sections 3-6.3.4 and 5-I.

Delete footnote" from "Exhaust Fans" Section 5-I. SUBSTANTIATION: A reorganization of material Concerning the termination of exhaust sy~stems to clar i fy the committee's intent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #2) 96- 58 - (3-6.1): Reject ~ : Terry Wong, City of Vancouver RECOMMENDATION: New text for food court exhaust systems:

"Multiple hood exhausts" via one common duct and one exhaust fan.:

a) Type of instal lation permitted? b) Fire suppression requlrements? Renumber existing 3-6, 3-6.1, etc.

SUBSTANTIATION:' Special considerations required for multiple hood connections to one main exhaust duct with respect to:

a) Fire suppression treatment of cooking surfaces and main duct.

b) Type of canopies to use i .e. l isted grease "extractors only c/w water wash system or???

c) Horizontal exhaust fan discharges vrs vertical discharge. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. CQMMITTE~LEMENT: Submitter made no specific recommendation for language change in the standard.

(Log #82) 96- 59 - (3-6.1.1): Reject ~ : Philip O. Morton, Gaylord Industries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise the last sentence to read as follows: •

"The outlet shall be directed up away from the air intake." SUBSTANTIATION: By allowing ducts to terminate horizontally (away from) air intakes even though i t is 36 in. higher, prevailing winds could force contaminated discharge air down and into the area of the air intake. We believe that termination should be vertical only. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Standard is adequate as written.

(Log #96) 96- 60'- (3-6.1.I): Reject SUBMITTER: Donald L. Griffes, New England Ventilation Technologies RECOMMENDATION: There should be an exclusion of~the lO f t minimum clearance when the intake is an integral part of a compensating hood make up air system. In such a case we feel that the 3 f t below the exhaust opening should be acceptable. SUBSTANTIATION: We have been instal l ing systems in this manner for over 12 years and have seen no ev!dence of recycling of the exhaust air as long as the exhaust blower is an updraft type, l isted for commercial L kitchen ventilation use, which wi l l blow the fumes and vapors away from the building and the fresh air intake. COMMITTEE ACTIOn: Reject. ! COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Present standard covers the recommendation. See Proposal 96-57 (Log #I08).

(Log #83) 96- 61 - (3-6.1.2 Exception): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Philip O. Morton, Gaylord Industries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Reword the f i r s t sentence in the exception as follows:

" I f such is not possible, a horizontal discharge is permissible. A metal pan shall be provided on the roof surface to catch residues that pass through the system." SUBSTANTIATION: As currently worded a down discharge would be permissible.

3-6.1.3 requires the discharge to be at least 40 in. from the roof surface. The intent of this requirement is to keep flame, in the event of a f i re, away from the roof surface. Allowing a duct to face down towards the roof is not consistent with the intent. ' ' COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 96-57 (Log #1B8).

763

F .A . I . L . . . 12' 6 "

E

I F 11

J f

FIGURE 3-6.3.2

I

I F.A. I .

I I i

.I I

1

I , \ . , /

/ /

r / /

/

GRADE

/ /

~F.A.I. /

/

HORIZONTAL

EXAMPLE: MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN EXHAUST AND FRESH AIR INTAKE (F.A.I.) IN WALL F.A.I. IS SAME PLANE AS EXHAUST OR LOWER: MINIMUM OF IO' BETWEEN CLOSEST EDGES F.A.I. ABOVE PLANE OF EXHAUST: IO'+O.25' PER I DEGREE BETWEEN CLOSEST EDGES

764

(Log #24) 96- 62 - (3-6.1.3 Exception No. 2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Joseph N. Knapp, McDonald's Corporation RECOMMENDATION: Change the exception to include the following underlined words:

" . . . ducts may terminate into the base of an up-discharge exhaust fan ~hBt is l isted for restaurant exhaust u_~, provided the . . . SUBSTANTIATION: For quite a number of years now there have been exhaust fans that are specif ical ly l isted for use in restaurant grease exhaust systems. I t seems appropriate that we require the use of such fans, rather than permit unlisted fans, or fans l isted for other purposes to he used. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 96-57 (Log #108).

(Log #81) 96- 63 - (3-6.1.4 (New)): Accept in Principle S~M~E~: Philip O. Morton, Gaylord Industries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add a new section 3-6.1.4 to read as follows:

"Exhaust fans must have a drain outlet in the bottom of the fan housing which drains into a removable grease col lector." SUBSTANTIATION: Allowing residue to collect in the bottom of the fan housings w i l l . a f fec t the operation of the fan to the point that the fan motor could be damaged. Upblast fans or any fan incorporating a vert ical discharge are susceptlble to f i l l i n g up with rain water. Requiring a drain outlet would meet the intent of 3-1.4 and 3-4.3. Provisions for a drain would be consistent with the UMC 2002,3,b. ~O~M~T_T~Q~: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 96-57 (Log #108).

Chapter 3 is printed in tota l as revised by Proposals because of the number and comple×ity of the ~ssues addressing duct systems. The fol lowlng draf t is presented as an aid to the reviewer. Comments must reference a speci f ic proposal number as printed on the preceding pages and not the material in the revised Chapter 3 draf t .

Chapter 3 Duct Systems

3-I General. 3-1.1 Ducts shall not pass through f i r e walls or f i r e part i t ions. 3-1.2 All ducts shall lead, as direct ly as possible, to the exter ior of the building. 3-I.3 Duct systems shall not be interconnected with any other bu i ld ingvent i la t ing or exhaust system. 3-1.4 All ducts shall be installed without forming dips or traps that might collect residues. 3-1.5 All in te r io r surfaces of ducts shall be accessible for cleaning and inspection purposes. Openings required for accessibi l i ty shall comply with 3-3 Openings. (Revised from 3-I.6). (See 96-32)

3-2 Clearance. 3-2.1 Clearance b~tween ducts and combustible materials shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of Section I-3.2. (See 96-31) 3-3.2 For l isted grease ducts, see Section 3-4.

3-3 ORenin~. 3-3.1 Openings shall be provided at the sides or at the top of the duct, whichever is more accessible, and at changes of direction. (See 96-36)

Exception: Portions of the duct that are accessible from the duct entry or discharge. (See 96-33) 3-3.2 For l isted hoods with dampers in the exhaust col lar, an access panel for cleaning and inspection shall be provided in the duct or the hood col lar. This panel shall be as close to the hood as possible but not to exceed 3 f t . (See 96-34) 3-3.3 Exhaust fans with ductwork connected to both sides shall have access for cleaning and inspection within 3 f t on each side of the fan. (See 96-35)

3-3.4 Openings shall conform to the fol lowing: 3-3.4.1 On horizontal ducts at least one 20 in. X 20 in. opening shall be provided for personnel entry. . When an opening of th is size is not possible, openings large enough to permit thorough cleaning shall be provided at 12 f t in terva ls . (See 96-32) 3-3.4.2 In horlzontal sections, the lower edge of the opening shall be not less than 1 1/2 in. (38.1 mm) from the bottom of the duct. 3-3.4.3 On ver t i ca l ductwork where personnel entry is possible, access shall be provided at the top of the ver t l ca l r iser to accommodate descent. Where personnel entry is not possible, adequate access for cleaning shall be provided on each f l o o r . (See 96-37) 3-3.4.4 Covers shall be of the same material and thickness as the duct. Covers shall have a gasket or sealant that is rated for 1500°F and shall be grease t igh t . Fasteners used to secure the covers, such as bolts weld studs, latches or wing nuts shall he carbon steel or stainless and shall not penetrate duct walls.

Exception: Listed grease duct access door assemblies (covers) shall he ins ta l led in accordance with the terms of the l i s t i n g and the manufacturer's inst ruct ions. (See 96-38) 3-3.4.5 Openings for i ns ta l l a t l on , servic ing, an d inspection of l i s ted f i r e protect ion system devices and duct cleaning shall be provided in ducts and enclosures and shall conform to the requirements o~ 3-3.4 and 3-7.1.5. (See 96-41)

~-4 L~sted Grease Ducts. Listed grease ducts shall be ins ta l led in accordance with the terms of the l l s t i n g and the manufacturer's instruct ions.

3-5 Other Grease Ducts. Other grease ducts shall co~ply with the fol lowlng requirements. 3-5.1 Materials. Ducts shall be constructed of and supported by carbon steel not less than 0.054 in. (1.37 mm) (No. 16 HSG) or stainless steel not less than 0.043' in. (1.09 mm) (No. 18 MSG) in thickness. 3-5.2 Ins ta l l a t i on . 3-5.2.1 A l l seams, Joints, penetrations and duct to hood co l la r connections shall have a l i q u i d - t i g h t continuous external weld.

Exception No. 1: Duct to hood co l l a r connections as shown in f igure 3-5.2.1 shall be permitted,

Exception No. 2: Penetrations shall be permitted to he sealed by other l i s ted devices that are evaluated under the same conditions of f i r e sever i ty as the hood or enclosure of l i s ted grease extractors, and whose presence does not detract from the hood's or duct's structural i n teg r i t y . (See 96-44)

~-6. Exter ior Ins ta l la t ions . 3-6.1 The ver t i ca l port ion of exhaust ducts shall be connected to the horizontal port ion of the duct system and shall be ins ta l led and adequately supported on the ex te r io r of a bui ld ing. Bolts, screws, r ivets ahd other mechanical fasteners shall not penetrate duct wal ls. Clearance of any ver t i ca l or horlzontal ducts to combustible material shall comply with 1-3.2. (See 96-47) 3-6.2 Al l ducts shall be protected on the ex ter io r hy paint .or other sui table weather-protective coating, or shall be constructed of noncorrosive stainless steel.

M i n i m u m 1 " by 1 " ~ m . R l t c t o n ~ l l ~ ~ ' ~ .

Gauge u 0 . 0 . 3 f Duc t ~ntinuous ~rime~r , • ~"

- ~ T h l . I.O. o f ~'1~--~" Weld S , ~ s or Bolts " ' * ~ " i " H O ~ ~ l l a r " ', e l Each ~ r ~ r a ~ : i

' ' 4 d ~ ' . 4 " ¢ ; ; ~ i " ~ ~OO¢ITop

BoW"~ o...,.o,~.,. Min. ~ Hood/OuctJolnt Plrlumlcti~

ForSI uni~, l in, = 25.4 mm

Figure 3-5.2.1 (See 96-43)

7 6 5

3-7 Interior InstallationF. 3-7.1 In al l buildings more than one story' in height, and in one-story buildings where the roof or roof-ceiling assembly is required to have a f i re resistance rating, the ducts shall be enclosed in a continuous enclosure extending from the ceiling above the hood, through any concealed spaces, to or through the roof so as to maintain the integrity of the f i re separations required by the applicable building code provisions. The enclosure shall be sealed around the duct at the point of penetration at the ce i l ing and vented to the exterior of the building through weather protected openings. The enclosure shall conform to the following: (See 96-50) 3-7.1.1 I f the building is less than 4 stories in height, the enclosure wall shall have a f i re resistance rating of not less than 1 hr. 3-7.1.2 I f the building is 4 stories or more in height, the enclosure wall shall have a f i re resistance rating of not less than 2 hrs. 3-7.1.3 Clearance from the duct to the interior surface of enclosures of combustible construction shall not be less than 18 in. (457.2 ram), and clearance from the duct to the inter ior surface of enclosures of noncombustible or llmited-combustible construction shall not be less than 6 in. (152.4 mm). Provisions for reducing clearances as described in I-3.2 are not applicable to enclosures. (See 96-54)

NOTE: Noncombustible materials such as reinforced concrete floors or protected steel beams, which may protrude into an enclosure and cause reduced clearance, may be acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction i f the instal lat ion and accessibility of the duct system is considered adequate.

3-7.1.4 For l isted grease ducts, see Section 3-4. 3-7.1.5 I f openings in the enclosure walls are

provided, they shall be protected by approved self-closing f i re doors of proper rating. See NFPA 80, Standard for Fire Doors and Windows. 3-7.1.6 Each duct system shall consitute an individual system serving only exhaust hoods on one floor.

3~_!~rmination of E x h a ~ s t S ~ . (See 96-57) 3-8.1 The exhaust system shall terminate as follows: 3-8.1.1 Outside the building with a fan or duct.

NOTE: I t is preferable for the fan to be at or as close to the end of the duct as possible in order to minimize the amount of pressurized duct joints and cleanouts through which grease might leak more easily.

3-8.1.2 Through the roof as in Section 3-8.2, or through a wall as in Section 3-8.3. 3-8.2 Rooftop Terminations. 3-8.2.1 Rooftop terminations shall be as follows: 3-8.2.2 With a minimum of 10 f t (3.05 m) of clearance from the outlet to adjacent buildings, property lines, and air intakes. When space limitations absolutely prevent a 10 f t (3.05 m) horizontal separation from an air intake, a vertical separation wi l l be acceptable will) the exhaust outlet being a minimum of 3 f t (.92 m) above any air intake located within 10 f t (3.05 m) horizontally. 3-8.2.3 With the exhaust flow directed up and away from the surface of the roof, and a minimum of 40 in. (1016 mm) above the roof surface. 3-8.2.4 With the ab i l i t y to drain grease out of any traps or low points forme~ in the fan or duct near the termination of the system to a rainproof collection container or to a remote grease trap. 3-8.2.5 With a l isted grease duct complying with Section 3-4, or with ductwork complying with Section 3-5, or~ 3-8.2.6 With a hinged up-discharge fan that is l isted for commercial cooking equipment, provided the ductwork extends a minimum of 18 in. (457.2 mm) above the roof surface and the fan discharges a minimum of 40 in. (1016 mm) above the roof surface, or, 3-8.2.7 With other approved fan, provided, (a) i t meets the requirements of Sections 3-8.2.4 and 5-1, and (b) i t ' s discharge or i t ' s extended duct discharge meets the requirements of Section 3-8.2.3. 3-8.3 Wall Terminations. 3-8.3.1 Wall terminations shall be as follows:

3-8.3.2 Through a masonry wall with a minimum of 10 f t (3.05 m) of clearance from the outlet to adjacent buildings, property lines, grade level, combustible construction, electrical equipment or lines, and the closest point of any air intake at or below the plane of the exhaust termination. The closest point of any alr intake above the plane of the exhaust termination shall be a minimum of 10 f t (3.05 m) distant, plus 0.25 f t (0.076 m) per each one (1) degree from horizontal, the angle of degree being measured from the center of the exhaust termination to the center of the air intake. See Figure 3-8.3.2 next page. (See 96-57) 3-8.3.3 With the exhaust flow directed perpendicularly outward from the wall face, or upward. 3-8.3.4 With al l the ductwork pitched to drain the grease back to the hood(s), or with a drain provided to bring the grease back to a container within the building, or to a remote grease trap. 3-8.3.5 With a l isted grease duct complying with Section 3-4, or other ducts complying with Section 3-5, or, 3-8.3.6 With an approved fan, provided, (a) i t meets the requirements of Sections 3-8.3.4 and 5-I.

(Log #109) 96- 64 - (4-1, 4-1.2.2.1): Accept ~ : Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances RECOMMENDATION: Revise Chapter 4 as fol lows:

Chapter 4. Grease Removal Devices in Hoods. 4-1 Grease Removal Devices. Listed grease f i l t e r s ,

baf f les, or other approved grease removal devices for use with commerclal cooking equipment shall be provided.

4-2 Ins ta l l a t l on . 4-2.1 The distance between the grease removal device

and the cboklng surface shall be as great as possible. Where grease removal devices are used in conjunction with charcoal or charcoal-type b ro i le rs , tncludlng gas or e l e c t r i c a l l y heated char-bro i lers , a minimum ver t i ca l distance of 4 f t (1.22 m) shall be maintained between the lower edge of the grease removal device and the cooking surface.

Exception No. 1: Grease removal devices supplied as part of l i s ted hood assemblies shall be ins ta l led in accordance with the terms of the l i s t i n g and the manufacturer's inst ruct ions.

Exception No. 2: With cooking equipment without exposed flame and where f lue gases bypass grease removal devices, the minimum ver t i ca l distance may be reduced to not less than 6 in.

4-2.2 Grease removal devices shall be protected from combustion gas out lets and from d i rec t flame impingement occurring during normal operation of cooking appllances producing high f lue gas temperatures, such as deep fat fryers, upright or high broilers (salamander broilers) when the distance between the grease removal device and the appliance flue outlet (heat source) is less than 18 in. (457.2 mm). This protection may be accomplished by the installation of a steel or stainless steel baffle plate between the heat source and the grease removal device. The baffle plate shall be so sized and located that flames or combustion gases must travel a distance not less than 18 in. (457.2 mm) from the heat source to the grease removal device. The baffle shall be located not less than 6 in. (152.4 mm) from the grease removal devices.

Exception: See Exceptions No. I and No. 2 to 4-2.1 above.

4-2.3 Filters shall be t i gh t - f i t t i ng and firmly held in place.

4-2.4 Filters shall be easily accessible and removable for cleaning.

4-2.5 Filters shall be installed at an angle not less than 45 degrees from the horizontal.

4-2.6 Filters shall be equipped with a drip tray beneath the lower edge of the f i l te rs . The tray shall be kept to the minimum size needed to collect the grease and be pitched to drain to an enclosed metal container having a capacity not exceeding 1 gal (3.785 L). SUBSTANTIATION: To eliminate confusion and to clari fy the intent of the Committee. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

766

I

I F.A. I .

" / F .A . I . . I I

J J

/

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/

. I .

. . . , . . .

f

EXAMPLE:

i F.A. I .

GRADE

MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN EXHAUST AND FRESH AIR INTAKE (F .A . I . ) IN WALL F .A. I . IS SAME PLANE AS EXHAUST OR LOWER: MINIMUM OF IO' BETWEEN CLOSEST EDGES F . A , I . ABOVE PLANE OF EXHAUST: 10 '+O.25' PER I DEGREE BETWEEN CLOSEST EDGES ~ :

Figure 3 -8 .3 .2

767

(Log #54) 96- 65 - (4-1.1.1 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: New text:

"In no case does the instal lat ion of a new listed system, grease removal devices or secondary f i l t ra t ion system allow for the downgrading of other parts of the system as is required in the code." SUBSTANTIATION: I have observed the installations of secondary f i l t ra t ion systems after which contractors have installed air conditioning ducting to vent the "so-called" clean air the rest of the way out of the building. Or these systems have been inst~lled on roofs bypassing the rules regarding termination of ducts sec. 3-6. When the secondary f i l te rs needs to be replaced the restaurant owner discovers the cost of the replacement f i l te rs and simply.removes the old f i l te rs rendering the system inadequate. As this is not done until well after construction is finished there is no real authority having jurisdict ion that discovers this. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Renumber 6-2.6 to 6-3. Add new sentence to end of existing language so that

revised 6-3 reads as follows: 6-3 Other Equipment. Fume incinerators, thermal

recovery units, a i r pollution control devices, or other devices may be installed in ducts or hoods or located in the path of travel of exhaust products when specifically approved for such use, and shall not increase the f i re hazard. Downgrading other parts of the exhaust system due to the instal lat ion of these approved devices, whether l isted or not, shall not be allowed. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agreed with the intent of the submitter, but fe l t that the requirement should go in Chapter 6.

(Log #65) 96- 66 - (4-1.2.1.1): Reject S~TTER: Lawrence 3. Capalbo, Flame Guard, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revised text:

4-1.2.1.1 Grease f i l te rs , including frames, or other grease removal devices shall be tota l ly constructed of noncombustible materials having a melting point equal to or greater than 2000 degrees fahrenheit. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 96 outlines in Chapter 2 on hoods, paragraph 2-1.1, the specific types of materials used to construct hoods. However in Chapter 4-1.2.1.1, the only requirements for the construction of grease f i l te rs is that they be made of "noncombustible materials." We at Flame Guard, Inc. have for many years fe l t this omission serious and have in previous proposals outlined recommended changes to NFPA 96's wording in this regard. Specifically we draw into question the allowed use of aluminum baffle style f i l te rs and aluminum and stainless steel mesh f i l te rs in an NFPA approved hood. These types of f i l te rs when exposed to flames from a surface f i re, melt or Just disintegrate and allow the surface f i re to be pulled into the ductwork. The photographs show evidence of one such instance. These f i l te rs fe l l apart under exposure to a surface f i re, dropping molten aluminum onto the cooking surface and with the help of the exhaust fans, molten aluminum was pulled upwards, fouling the f i re extinguishing systems nozzles, preventing them from going off. In the case of mesh style f i l te rs , i t is very easy for the fine strips of metal that make up the f i l te r ing media to ignite and burn much in the same manner a steel wool pad wi l l burn when put to the match. Combine this easily ignited material with the grease that loads into a mesh f i l t e r and you see the potential for a serious f i re hazard.

What has confused us for many years is NFPA 96's definit ive information on the construction of hoods and the absence of such standards for f i l te rs . At the .cr i t ical , most susceptible point for a f i re to start and spread, we allow the use of substandard materials. I f i t is acceptable to manufacture grease f i l te rs out of aluminum then why not the entire hood. NFPA 96 does not aI]ow hoods to be made of aluminum because they know aluminum wil] not stand up to the heat, grease, stress and general wear and tear experienced by a hood. An a]uminum hood would also be very hard to

clean adding a health and sanitation problem. These same considerations exist in regards to grease f i l te rs . The only reason aluminum baffle and mesh style f i l te rs exist is based solely on price. This seems a pretty sad state of affairs to allow products such as these to meet NFPA 96 guidelines when their sole virtue is that they are cheap.

In order for NFPA 96 to be consistent and to prOmote NFPA's primary goal of safeguarding lives and property, we urge you to consider our proposed change.

NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~O~!~E..~S_t~LE.~Z: The Committee feels that l isted grease f i l te rs and the construction requirements presently contained in the standard are adequate.

(Log #107) 96- 67 - (4-1.2.1.2): Accept ~ : Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances R__E_COMMENDATION: Add a new second sentence to 4-I as follows:

"Mesh f i l t e rs shall not be used." ~UBSTANTIATIQN: To c lar i fy the Committee's position on the use of mesh f i l te rs with commercial cooking equipment. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #69) 96- 68 - (4-1.2.2.1): Reject SUBMITTER: J. S. Pari.kh, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Delete the f i r s t sentence, "The distance . . . possible." SUBSTANTIATION: This requirement does not provide any useful or helpful information. Also, the distance for the l isted hoods determined by the Cooking Smoke and Flare-Up Test described in Standard UL 710 may conflict with the distance above the cooking surface permitted by the design of the room. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee fe l t that this information was useful in f ie ld installations.

(Log#g7) 96- 69 - (4-1.2.2.1): Reject ~ : Donald L. Gr i f fes, New England Vent i la t ion Technologies RECOMMENDATION: The p~oblem of mesh type f i l t e r s being a f i r e hazard because of the i r storage capacity of grease should be considered. The baf f le type f i l t e r , which stores no grease in the f i l t e r i t s e l f , should be considered for lessor clearances. SUBSTANTIATION: Perhaps this matter should be addressed as to the benefi ts of the baf f le type f i l t e r over the mesh type. I have read somewhere that a study was conducted to determine the extent of flame travel and f lammabil i ty of the two types of f i l t e r s . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There are no l i s ted mesh f i l t e r s for use with commercial cooling equipment and the Committee disagrees that baf f le- type f i l t e r s store no grease. See 96-67 (Log #107).

(Log #25) g6- 70 - (4-1.2.2.1 Exception (New)): Accept in Pr incip le ~ : Joseph N. Knapp, McDonald's Corporation RECOMMENDATION: Add the fo] lowlng new exception to 4-1.2.2.1:

Exception: With cooking devices without exposed flame and where flue.gasses bypass f i l t e r s in l i s ted vent i la to rs , l i s ted hood and damper assemblies, and c lass i f ied hoods without dampers, f i l t e r s shall be ins ta l led at an ef fect ive height of not less than 6 in. (152 mm) above cooking surfaces. SUBSTANTIATION: There is no increased hazard in

768

applications with the above restrictions as can be attested by our use of this approach for 38 years. In addition, the higher minimum cle(~rances of 2 to 2-I/2 f t for these same applications as required by the model codes would require that the hoods be mounted higher, causing an increase in exhaust and thus in energy usage. C__OMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. C_OMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 96-64 (tog #109).

(Log #70) q6- 71 - (5-I): Accept in Principle ~BMITTER: J. S. Parikh, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

"Power.Ventilators. Power ventilators, consisting of an impeller and motor in a housing, shall be approved for use with restaurant exhaust appliances and rated for continuous operation and shall be installed to comply with the following requirements." SUBSTANTIATION: Present wording does not adequately describe the product, a power ventilator which is intended to remove grease-laden cooking vapors. Listed power ventilators for restaurant exhaust appliances are subjected to elevated temperature and abnormal flare-up tests, which are intended to simulate f ield conditions. Tests are conducted in accordance with UL's Outline of Proposed Investigation for Power Ventilators for Restaurant Exhaust Appliances, Subject 762. The proposed revision wil l provide consistency in term!nology with the products UL has listed for approximately 16 years, and are readily available for such use. I t should also eliminate con£uslon to UL's reference to NFPA-g6 in i ts published advices in co!!nection with the use of these products. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 5-I to read as follows: 5-I Exhaust Fans for Commerci~l Cooking Equipment.

Approved up-discharge fans with motors surrounded by the air stream shall be listed for this use. Other exhaust fans for this use shall be approved for continuous operation. Both shall be installed to comply with the following requirements: COMMITTEE STATEMENT: More clearly meets the submitter's intent.

(Log #55) g6- 72 - (5-IL2.1 (New)): Accept in Principle S_UBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: New text:

"Standard aluminum updraft types of fans require the installation of hinges and retaining chains on one edge of the exhaust fan to allow tipping of the fan for access to c lean." S~BSTANTIATION: By hinging the base of the fan and putting a retaining chain on i t , you wi l l be able to clean the fan blades, the underside of the fan, and the exhaust duct. Otherwise, in many cases the fans are tarred to the roof and there is inadequate electrical cable to allow for this process. Many times fans are in awkward positions and can not be l i f ted off the ductwork. 'Removing the fan in any other way can result in damage to i ts balance, motor or duct ledge.

NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Action on Proposal 96-57 (Log #108).

(Log #84) 96- 73 - (5-2.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Philip O. Morton, Gaylord Industries, Inc. RE__E~_QMM__ENDATION: Change the paragraph to read as fo l lows:

"The v e l o c i t y through any exhaust duct shal l not be less than 1,500 f t (457.2 m) per mln. or more than 2,500 (762 m) per min."

SUBSTANTIATION: To bring into compliance with the UMC paragraph 2002, 3(f). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee fe l t the recommendation was toe restr ict ive.

(Log #g5) g6- 74 - (5-2 .1) : Accept in P r inc ip le ~S_U~MJ~: Stephen K. Mel ink, Amerivent Services Corporation RECOMMENOATION: It is proposed that Chapter 5, paragraph 5-2.1 be changed to read:

"The air velocity through any duct shall not be less than 1,500 ft per mln durlng nominal full-load cooking conditions. The velocity may be less during part-load or zero-load cooking conditions." SUBSTANTIATION: As a testing and balancing firm. of HVAC systems in the restaurant industry, Amerivent has observed the problem that actual cooking loads vary with the time of day and day of week - while conventional ventilation systems operate on a constant volume basis. Thus, during period of the day when there is very l i t t l e or no cooking, the v e n t i l a t i o n system continues to exhaust the same amount of a i r from the restaurant . This i s , of course, very e n e r g y - i n e f f l c i e n t .

As a result, Amerivent has developed a new, state-of-the-art variable exhaust controller that varies the exhaust volume in proportion to.the actual cooking load. I t does this by sensing the heat.and smoke loads separately, and sending a signal to a motor speed controller, which in turn, te l ls the exhaust fan motor how fast to run.

This means that i f a duct is sized for 1500 FPM at nominal ful l- load cooking conditions, then when the fan slows down in response to a reduced or part- load cooking conditlon, the duct velocity wi l l go below 1500 FPM.

Since there is less grease vapors to exhaust dGrlng part-load cooking conditions, the air velocity required to move i t through the ~xhaust duct should be allowed to be proportionally less.

The entire HVAC industry is rapidly moving towards variable-speed, variable-volume products and systems. I t is important for restaurant owners and national energy conservation reasons, for use to design codes

l

that reflect the available technology. I As i t is, commercial kitchen ventilation is very

energy-lnefficlent and we have an obligation to nbt allow codes to become out-dated with the current! times. Fire safety is imperative, but we must strive for smart ways to provide both f i re safety and energy efficiency.

Our variable exhaust controller has generated :I extremely high interest from national restaurant i chains, hood manufacturers, and even the U.S. government. We are applying for an Energy-Related Invention Grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce, and wi l l be exhibiting the product at the International Air Conditioning Heating and Refrigerating Exposition in Chicago Jan. 30 - Feb. 2.

The Committee's adoption of this sl ight ly more f lexible wording wi l l help move the restaurant industry into the 199g's. And I appreciate your consideration of this important change and development. .r COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add an exception to 5-2.2 as follows: Exception: Lower exhaust a i r volumes shall be

permitted during no-load cooking conditions prov!ded they are sufficient to capture and remove flue gases and residual vapors from cooking equipment. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee accepted the app l i ca t i on fo r no-load cooking condi t ions as a pos i t i ve feature. The Committee was concerned, however, about capture and containment 'of grease~laden vapors dur ing par t - load cooking.

769

(Log #98) 96- 75 - (5-2.1): Reject SUBM[TTER: Donald L. Gril les, New England Ventilation Technologies RE~OMM~N: I believe that 5-2.1 is superior in not stating a maximum l imi t but perhaps there should be a reference as to the maximum as a recommendation. The 1500 FPM minimum is practical because of the precipitation or sett l ing of grease residue on the interior of the ducts at lower velocities. However, when a duct is al l vertical above the hood, a minimum velocity is much less important as residue returns to the lowest level which would be the reservoir at the hood. SUBSTANTIATION: BOCA Code is requir ing a maximum of 2200 FPM which I do not agree with. The NFPA 96 code used to have a maximum of 2500 FPM duct velocity which has been discontinued.

My findings of this matter are that there seems" to be no detrimental effects of velocities exceeding 2200 or even a 2500 FPM l imi t except sound level and stati c pressure limitations. Perhaps that was the basis for the elimination of a maximum l imit . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 96-?3 (Log #84).

(Log # 103) 96- 76 - (5-2.2, 5-2.3, 5-2.4 and 5-2.5): Reject SUBMjTTER: D. E. Overton, Knoxville, TN RECOMMENDATION: Add the language "a l l " and "produced" by etc" to the f i r s t sentence of 5-2.2 as follows:

Exhaust . . . of "a l l " grease-laden . . . vapors "produced by the cooking equipment i t serves".

Delete the second sentence of 5-2.2. Test data or performance acceptable to the authority

having jurisdiction or both shall be provided or displayed or both upon request.

Add: 5-2.3 Canopy hoods attached to a wall shall exhaust

a minimum exhaust of 80 cfm per sq f t of the suction opening. A canopy hood when open on al l sides shall exhaust a minimum of 125 cfm per sq f t of suction opening. The exhaust flow rates shall provide a minimum average velocity of 50 fpm through the plane in-between the outside edge of the cooking surfaces and tile perimeter entrance area of the hood.

5-2.4 Non-canopy hoods shall exhaust a minimum of 300 cfm per lineal foot of cooking surface. The exhaust flow rates shall provide a minimum average velocity of 64 fpm through the plane in-between the outside edge of the cooklng surfaces and the perimeter entrance area of the hood.

5-2.5 "Nothing in this standard is intended to prevent the use of an alternate; that is, provided the applicant for a proposed alternate submits (I) certif ied calculations or (2) test results from an approved agency to substantiate a reduced air volume wil l properly exhaust al l grease and smoke vapor produced by the cooking equipment i t serves." SUBSTANTIATION: The ("add") "Clarifies how much grease-laden cooking vapors are to be captured and removed" and "the source".

The delete allows the submittal of proposed change 5-2.5 ( i .e . , "an advisory that spells out the requirement for an alternate; that is, as per NFPA 96, Section 1-3.4.)

Sufficient is ample; but, is vague insofar as a needed guideline from which both optimum safety and energy conservation result.

Several manufacturers promote the sale of a commercial kitchen hood system with un-warranted l lst ina/ label "cIBim" as to the value of the air flow rates recorded during Underwriters Laboratories #710 test.

I t ' i s the practice, with few exceptions, for the authority having jurisdict ion t 9 accept the manufacturers "claim" The following is a typical scenario after instal lat ion:

I. The volume of exhaust and replacement ai r is insufficient.

2. The exhaust is increased.

3. The replacement ai r system does not have sufficient capacity to supply the volume required to prevent a negative pressure in excess of 0.02 in. of water.

4. No one advised the authority having jurisdiction of the air flow change.

5. The authority having jurisdiction can not check the actual a i r flow rates; not versed in the procedure of air balance and/or has no air balance equipment.

6. Fuel burning appliances are not vented at the level prescribed for safety by this code.

There is a need for a i r flow guidelines whereby the authority having jurisdict ion could, prior to installation of a hood system, have "claims" substantiated. Reputable hood manufacturers wil l support the proposed code change; they do not make un-warranted "claims". I f adopted, the proposed change w i l l enhance safety and energy conservation through the expertee of unbtas professional design consultants.

NOTE: Supporting materlal is avai lable for review at NFPA Headquarters."

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee took velocities out of the standard in the past because they were too restr ict ive and the Committee fe l t that the inclusion of the word "a l l " would be superfluous because of the inabi l i ty to prove such a requirement. Also, the recommended new subsection 5-2.5 is presently covered in I-3.4.

(Log #14) 96- 77 - (5-2.3): Accept in Principle ~_U_~J~Ij_T_T_~R: 3oseph N. Knapp, McDonald's CorPoration RECOMMENDATION: Change "shall" in the existing sentence to "should preferably."

Add a second sentence to read: " I t is not required to restart the hood exhaust

fan(s) after the extinguishing system has been activated, i f al l cooking equipment served by the fan(s) had previouslybeen shut down." SUBSTANTIATION: Some jurisidctions had interpreted 5-2.3 to mean that i t was required to start the exhaust fan i f the extinguishing system activated after the restaurant was closed. While such operation may be preferable in some cases, i t is not requisite. All such f i re suppression systems are l isted with the fan operating, and not operating. The intent of the section was to state a strong preference, but not mandate, to keep the fan operating i f possible. The above language better clar i f ies this intent in practical application. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Continue the word "shall" in existing language of 5-2.3.

Add a second sentence to read as follows: " I t is not required to restart the hood exhaust fan

when the extinguishingsystem is activated i f the exhaust fan and all cooking equipment served by the fan had previously been shut down." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Better states the intent of the submi tter.

(Log #71) 96- 78 - (5-2.3): Reject ~ : 3. S. Parikh, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change "Hood exhaust fan(s)" to "Power venti lators." SUBSTANTIATION: This revision, is suggested so as to be consistent with the proposed revision to paragraph 5-I. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal 96-71 (Log #70).

(Log #53) 96- 79 - (5-2.4 (New)): Accept in Pr incip le SUBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, 8. C. RECOMMENDATION: New tex t :

"That NFPA 96 w i l l not al low a i r from exhaust systems to be reci rculated, a l l a i r must be exhausted into the outside environment."

770

SUBSTANTIATION: Regardless of the technology that may exist today. To f i l t e r impurities from exhaust systems i t is not within the capacity of normal commercial restaurants do afford proper on going maintenance of these systems. What works for an atomic submarine wil l not work for Joe's Bar and Gr i l l . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 96-65 (Log #54).

(Log #99) 96- 80 - (5-3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Donald L. Griffes, New England Ventilation Technologies RECOMMENDA!ION: The existence of fuel burning appliances should not be the only cr i ter ia for replacement ai r as there are numerous other problems that can occur. I would recommend that replacement air should always be required as a part of a commercial cookingequipment ventilation system in fr ig id climates where energy conservation and tight buildings are the norm in cold weather. $_UBSTANT~N: In such cases, without adequate make up air, the building is under severe negative pressure. The problems in such cases are numerous. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete the f i r s t part of the text in 5-3 and revise the last part so that revised 5-3 reads as follows:

"5-3 Replacement Air. Replacement ai r quantity shall be adequate to prevent negative pressures in the commercial cooking area(s) from exceeding 0.02 in. water column (4.98 Pa)." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Meets the intent of the submitter and puts his suggestion into specific language in the standard.

(Log #56) g6- B1 - (6-2.6.1 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITLER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: New text:

"All NFPA 96 code requirements to apply regardless of what f i l t ra t ion systems, pollution control devices or other devices that are installed in the ductwork and fan." SUBSTANTIATION: I t has been my experience that contractors are using a secondary f i l t ra t ion system as a reason to downgrade the calibre of the ductwork from 96 requirements to ai r conditioning ducting with i ts associated baffles and dampers. This is vastly more economical to construct, but after a period of time many customers are removing these f i l te rs (which are extremely expensive) and let t ing the air run its course for no regards for the systems integrity. .COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal 96-65 (Log #54).

(Log #85) 96- 82 - (7-1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Philip O. Morton, Gaylord Industries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change the paragraph to read as follows:

"Approved f i re extinguishing equipment shall be provided for the protection of duct systems, grease removal devices, and hoods when any of the cooking equipment under the hood is a source of ignition (such as deep fat fryers, ranges, griddles and broi lers)." SUBSTANTIATION: Hoods coverlng cooking equipment that do not require protection, for example an oven or steamer, should not be required to have f i re extinguishing equipment for the protection of ducts, grease removal devices or hoods since there is no hazard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The reco~nendation only addresses sources of ignition and ignores grease producing appliances.

(Log #15) i 96- 83 - (7-I.I Exception): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Joseph N. Knapp, McDonald's Corporation RECOMMENDATION: Change the Exception to read:

" I f acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction, the portion of the f i re extinguishing system for the grease removal devices and hoods of 7-1.1 may be omitted when all cooking equipment is served by listed grease extractors containing a constant or fire: actuated water system, and such water system does not adversely affect the Operation of the f i re protection system for the duct and cooking equipment." SUBSTANTIATION: Duct protection has not been required for many l isted grease extractors containing f i re ' - dampers under the provisions of the exception as worded in the 1984 edition. Yet the history of slow response in actuatin~ these dampers, and of grease buildup or other restrlc~ions keeping these dampers from closing ful ly, has permitted f i re to extend into the ductwork where there has been no suppression system to combat i t . Since the l isted dampers cannot guarantee that f i re wil l not extend into the ductwork, i t is prudent f i re safety to require duct protection. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. /

Remove "duct systems," from 7-1.1 and insert ~'Duct systems and" at beginning of 7-1.2 as follows: i

7- I . I Approved f i re extinguishing equipment shall be provided for the protection of grease removal devices, and hoods.

Exception: I f acceptable to the authority ha~ing jurisdict ion, the portion of. the f i re extinguishing system covered by the provisions of 7-I . I may be omitted when all cooking equipment is served by;listed grease extractors. 'I

7-I.2 Duct systems and cooking equipment (such as deep fat fryers, ranges, griddles, and broilers) that may be a source of ignition of grease in the hood, grease removal device, or duct shall be protected by approved extinguishing equipment. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees withlthe submitter and simply made the change to 7Ft.1 ahd 7-1.2 instead of the exception to 7-1.I. .i!

r~

(Log #57)i~ 96- 84 - (7-1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Phll Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: Add "solid fuel burning equipment" to the l i s t of appliances. SUBSTANTIATION: Solid fuel embers are a serious source of ignition. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Committee fe l t that this recommendation was not appropriate because i t pertains to cooking fuel rather than a type of equipment.

(Log #32) 96- 85 - (7-1.3 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Vic Humm, Red Bank, TN RECOMMENDATION: New text: ,!

7-1.3 When the building during construction !s being provided with or i f an existing building has a f i re alarm system. The actuation of an extinguishing system by either automatic release or manual actuation;shall be connected to the buildings f i re alarm system~as an alarm condition.

I f the extinguishing system or the equivalent as indicated by paragraph 7~I.1 requires electrical power to be operational in a f i re mode or requires domestic water usage during a f i re mode then those conditions, such as a shut control unit valve or loss of operating power, shall be monitored by the building's f ir~ alarm " system as a supervisory alarm condition. SUBSTANTIATION: Because grease fires are a concern, the actuation of the extinguishing system and the monitoring of i ts cr i t ica l components to maintain operability should be required i f the building has a f i re alarm system. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle~ COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal 96-91 (Log #30).

771

(Log #9) 96- 86 - (7-2.1, 7-2.1.1, 7-2.1 ,1 .1 , 7-2.1.1.2, 7-2.1.2.1): Accept in Principle ~_UBMITTER: Rodney A. McPhee, Canadian Wood Council RECQMMEN_DATION: (a) Revise existing 7-2.1 to read:

7-2.1 Fixed Automatic Fire Extingushing Systems. (b) Revise 7-2.1.1 to read: 7-2.1.1 Fixed extinguishing equipment required by

7-I shall be either an automatic system specifically listed for the hazard or an automatically operated fixed pipe system.

(c) Revise existing 7-2.1.1.1 to read: 7-2.1.1.1 Automatic f i re extinguishing systems

specifically l isted for the hazard shall be installed in accordance with the terms of their l is t ing and the manufacturers' instructions.

(d) Revise existing 7-2.7.1.2 to read: 7-2.1.I.2 Other automatic f i re extinguishing systems

of the fixed pipe type shall be installed in compliance with the provisions of the following standards, where applicable:

NFPA 12, Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems

NFPA 13, Standard for Installation of Sprinkler Systems

NFPA 16, Standard on Deluge Foam-Water Sprinkler and Foam-Water Spray Systems.

NFPA 17, Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems

(e) Revise 7-2.1.2.1 to read: 7-2.1.2.1 Portable f i re extinguishers required by

7-I shall be installed in kitchen cooking areas in accordance with NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, Table 3-31 for Extra (high) Hazard. S~BSTANTIATION: (a) and (b) As presently worded i t would seem that the Standard requires both a l isted and a fixed pipe automatic extinguishing system to be provided. The new heading for 7-2.1 and revised

• wording of 7-2.1.1 c l a r i f i e s that only one of e i t he r type is adequate to protect the hazard..

(c) , (d) and (e) Changes are e d i t o r i a l in nature as a resu l t of proposed change to 7-2.1.1. Reference to "automatic" reinforces that manual systems are not permitted. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise al l of 7-2 as follows: 7-2 Types of Equipment. 7-2.1 Fire extinguishing equipment shall include

both fixed automatic f i re extinguishing systems and portable f i re extinguishers.

7-2.1.1 Fixed automatic f i re extinguishing systems required by 7-2.1 shall be either:

7-2.1.1.1 Automatic f i re extinguishing systems specifically l isted for the hazard installed in accordance with the terms of their l is t ing, the manufacturer's instructions and NFPA 17 Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems or NFPA 17A Standard for Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems.

7-2.1.1.2 Other automatic f i re extinguishing systems i ns ta l led in compliance with the provis ions of the fo l lowing standards where app l icab le :

NFPA 12 Standard for Carbon Dioxide Ext inguishing Systems

NFPA 13 Standard fo r the I n s t a l l a t i o n of Spr ink ler Systems

NFPA 16 Standard on Deluge Foam-Water Sprinkler and Foam-Water Spray Systems

NFPA 17 Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems

7-2.1.2 Move to 7-5 per 96-90 (Log #93) and revise Section on Portable Extinguishers as follows:

7-2.1.2.1 Move to 7-5 per 96-90 (Log #93) and revise Section on Portable Extinguishers as follows:

7-2.1.2.2 Move to 7-5 per 96-90 (Log #93) and revise Section on Portable Extinguishers as follows:

7-5 Portable Fire Extinguishers. 7-5.1 Portable f i re extinguishers required by 7-2.1

shall be installed in kitchen cooking areas in accordance with NFPA 10 Standard for Portable Extinguishers, Table 3-3.1 for Extra (high) Hazard I.

7-5.2 Other f i re extinguishers in the kitchen area shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 10, Standard fo~ Portable Fire Extinguishers.

Present footnote.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agreed with submitter and revised material further to meet the committee's intent.

(Log #86) 96- 87 - (7-2.1): Reject ~ T E R : Philip O. Morton, Gaylord Industries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Reword the sentence as follows:

"The extinguishing equipment shall include one of the following types." S U B S e t : 7-2.1.1 l i s t s two d i f f e ren t types of systems and thus jus t one of the systems should be required. COMMITTEE ACTIOn: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal 96-86 (Log #9).

(Log #29) 96- 88 - (7 -2 .1 .1 .2 ) : Accept in Pr lnc lp le SUBMITTER: Salvatore A. Gi lard i J r . , American Insurance Services Group, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add "NFPA 17A, Standard on Wet Chemical Ext inguishing Systems." SUBSTANTIATION: To update the ex is t i ng l i s t of referenced standards. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inc ip le , COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal 96-86 (Log #9).

(Log#87) 96- 89 - (7 -2 .1 .1 .2 ) : Accept in Pr inc ip le SUBHITTER: Ph i l i p O. Morton, Gaylord Industr ies, Inc. RECOBIII~I!~_~.IION: Add the fo l low ing standard:

NFPA 17A, Standard fo r Wet Chemical Ext inguishing Systems SUB$TANTIATIO_~: This is a new standard f i r s t published in 1986 and should be referenced. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inc ip le . ~ I T T E E STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal 96-86 (Log #9).

(Log #93) 96- 90 - (7 -2 .1 .2 ) : Accept ~ : 3oseph N. Knapp, McDonald's Corporation RECOMMENDATION: Move a l l of ex i s t i ng Section 7-2.1.2, Portable Ext inguishers Ins ta l l ed in the Kitchen Area, to fo l low afer ex i s t i ng Section 7-4, Review and C e r t i f i c a t i o n , and renumber the sections accordingly. SUBSTANTIATION: As cur ren t ly located, th is section on portables f a l l s in the mlddle of tex t that is otherwise deal ing exc lus ive ly with "systems" for the protect ion of hoods, ducts, grease removal devices, and appliances. This locat ion breaks the chain of understanding. I t would seem to be be t te r to locate i t at the end of the "systems" sect ions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #30) 96- 91 - (7-3.1.4 (New)): Accept in Pr inc ip le SUBMITTER: T. G. Daly, H i l ton Hotels Corporation RECOMMENDATION: Add the fo l lowing:

7-3.1.4 The operat ion of any ext inguish ing system shal l automat ica l ly signal any l oca l , p ropr ie ta ry , remote, a u x i l i a r y or central s ta t ion s ignal lng system serving the premises wherein the ext inguish ing system is located. Where no s igna l l i ng System is present, the operat ion of any ext ingu ish ing system shal l sound a local audible alarm. SUBSTANTIATION: The operat ion of a f ixed ext inguishlng system may cont ro l , but not f u l l y ext inguish, f i res occurr ing in grease laden cooking equipment. Gaseous based ext ingu ish ing systems may be p a r t l c u l a r l y suscept ible given no a b i l i t y to contain the agent and the l i ke l i hood of r e i g n i t i o n due to continuous ignt ion sources e.g. cooking equipment l e f t on overnight . .

772

Where such activation occurs, the notif ication and response of on site personnel and/or the f i re department may be crucial to successful extinguishment. Where such cooking areas are not constantly attended, the monitoring of such systems or the provisions for local alarm is a reasonable measure to reduce losses. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

With minor revision, add new 7-3.1.4 as follows: 7-3.1.4 The operation of any extinguishing system

shall automatically signal any local, proprietary, remote, auxilary, or central station f i re alarm signaling system serving the premises wherein the extinguishing system is located when such alarm system is present. ~QMMI~ATEJ~i~_NI: Recommendation revised to make language consistant with requirement in NFPA 17A.

(Log #94) 96- 92 - (8-1.6 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: 3oseph N. Knapp, McDonald's Corporation RECOMMENDATION: Add new section 8-1.6 to read:

"Inspections, Maintenance and Cleaning that require the exhaust system to be opened, or the f i r e suppression system to be disarmed, or any other operation that compromises the operations and safety of the system, shall not be conducted while the cooking equipment is operat iona l . " SUBST_A_N_~: To serve as a statement against inspections, maintenances, and other operations that compromise the design and safety of the system while cooking equipment is s t i l l operat ional. Opening the exhaust system would reduce draw and could be serious with gas f i red equipment. Disarming the f i r e suppression system would leave no protect ion in the event of a surprise f i r e . 3umpering control c i rcu i ts to revise them could bypass any important safety interlock. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #58) 96- 93 - (8-2.1.3.1 (New): Reject ~UBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: New text:

"Contractors who change or service f i re extinguisher links must provide proof of l i a b i l i t y to the authority having jur isdict ion." SUBSTANTIAl: I t is assumed that the responsibility to have the f i re extinguisher links maintained fal ls to the owner of the establishment. Should the owner contract a cleaning contractor to do this work that cleaning contractor should recognize that he is accepting a degree of responsibility by having l i a b i l i t y insurance for the safety of the system. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee fe l t that this was outside the scope of the Committee.

(Log #31) 96- 94 - (8-3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Cosimo Pultro, Long Island.Duct Cleaning Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Delete "at frequent intervals" and revise to read:

"Hoods, grease removal devices, fans, ducts, and other appurtenances shall be cleaned as often as may be necessary but not less than two (2) times per year." SUBSTANTIATION: A standard set forth should indicate specific minimum parameters between cleanings of grease exhaust systems. As presently stated "at frequent intervals" leaves too broad an area for individual interpretation, Whereas different types of restaurants produce varying amounts of grease we believe the phrase "as often as may be necessary" would apply more specifically throughout the industry. Local Fire Marshalls and insurance companies can set local requirements'over and above the national standard but at no time would that be less than the national standard. On Long Island i t has been noted that /

seasonal restaurants generally do not adhere to a twice annual cleaning as they rationalize they're only being open 6 to 9 months per year. However, i t has been our experience that they produce as much grease in 6 months as year round restaurants do in 12. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Proposal 96-95 (Log #60).

(Log #60) 96- 95 - (8-3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: Revised text:

"Hoods, grease removal devices, fans ducts and other appurtenances shall be cleaned at least twice a year." SUBSTANTIATION: Presently, the reading of the 1987 NFPA Code Section 8-3.1 does not provide the authority having jurisdiction with a clear enough guidline. I t is nearly impossible during operating hours of cooking establishments to remove f i l te rs , access panels, and t ip fans to determine the amount of grease accumulated. Therefore, a simple general rule is appropriate. There are a few minor exceptions to a twice a year rule;" such as seldom used rental halls. The vast majority of fu l l time cooking establishments should be serviced at least twice a year. Again, with some exceptions see proposal section 8-3.1.1 and 8-3.1.2. L COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add a second sentence to existing 8-3.1 that reads: They shall be inspected at least every six months.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter's substantiation, but does not agree that cleaning twice a year should be mandatory for operations that do not require such a frequency of cleaning.

(Log #72) 96- 96 - ( 8 - 3 . 1 ) : Reject ~_UBMITTER: O. S. Parikh, Underwriters Laboratories.Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change "fans" in f i r s t l lne to read "power venti I ators." ~_UB_STANTIATION: This revision is suggested so as to be consistent with the revised terminology in paragraph 5-I. CO__QM~II_TT_E_E~O~_: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal 96-71 (Log #70).

(Log #34) 96- 97 - (8-3.1.1 (New)): Accept in Principle ~ : Larry Stahl, Hardee's Food Systems, Inc. RECOMMENDATIQ~_: New text:

8-3.1.I Internal surf.aces of ventilation systems shall be cleaned to bare metal and no other (Fire Rating) substances shall be applied to the internal surfaces of the ventilation system. SUBSTANTIATION: The internal surfaces of ventilation systems are being part ia l ly cleaned and then sprayed with a Fire Rating Powder. They leave a grease layer on the duct to .hold the powder. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I Insert " t o bare metal" in 8-3.1 after "cleaned" and before "at frequent intervals." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: More clearly meets the intent of the submitter.

(Log #61) 96- 98 - (8-3.1.1 (New)): Accept in Pr inciple B~SUBMI_TTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: New tex t :

"In the case of heavy volume fast food, frylngb charbroi l ing, or ienta l cooking, or hardwood (br iquette) type cooking, kitchen exhaust systems should be cleaned every 3 months."

7 7 3

SUBSTANTIATION: These types of high volume cooking creates grease buildup at a correspondlngly greater rate than is normal based on several factors. In the case of fast food (hamburgers, french f r ies , charbroi l ing) a considerable amount of fa t is cooked of f and recondenses very easi ly and quickly in the ducting. In or ienta l food (woks) the extreme heat mixed with oi i and water creates a substantially different type of grease residue. This residue is very adhesive and accumulates rapidly in high production situations. In the case of hardwood (briquette) fuel or fuel sources other than gas and electr ic i ty , the ash and carbon of the fuel sources mixes with the grease and creates volumes two to four times greater than normal buildup. Embers from this type of cooking have been known to be sucked up into the system where they are capable of i gn i t i ng the grease therein, This type of cooking is general ly used as "open-flame" cooking, an added r isk . COM~IT~E~_~_T~: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Action on Proposal 96-95 (Log #6O).

(Log #62) 96- 9g - (8-3.1.2): Accept in Principle ~U_B_~.~TT_~!_F=R: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMeNDATIOn: New text:

"Certificate of performance of a vent cleaner should be posted on or near the hood stating date of expiration and existence of any inaccessible areas." SUBSTANTIATION: The authority having jurisdict ion (usually the f i re inspector) needs to have some way of knowing whether or not the exhaust system has been thoroughly cleaned. The exhaust system includes the hoods, ducts and fans. This cleaning should be comprehensive of a l l parts not jus t "serv ic ing" the l i s ted grease ext ractor . Presently there is considerble confusion as to what exact ly is being cleaned or serviced. Also, in many systems inaccessible areas ex is t which w i l l accumulate considerable amounts of grease. The author i ty having j u r i sd i c t i on should be made aware of th is because the people who t r a d i t i o n a l l y discover that these areas ex is t are the vent cleaners. They are the ones who come in a f te r the restaurant has been in operation for a period of time and the grease has had a chance to accumulate. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add new 8-3.1.I that reads as follows: 8-3.1.1 When a vent cleaning service is used, a

cert i f icate showing date of inspection or cleaning shall he maintained on the premises. Areas not cleaned shall be noted. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Better reflects the intent of the Committee.

(Log #63) 96- IO0 - (8-3.1.2 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMH~N~A_TI_QN: New text:

"Systems in which low volumes of fat are cooked i .e. soup kitchens, pizza ovens, steam tables, should be cleaned annually." SUBSTANTIATION: Due to the lesser volume of grease involved once a year cleaning should be adequate. COMMIT_TEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Action on Proposal 96-95 (Log #60).

(Log #64) 96- I01 - (8-3.2.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Phil Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: New text:

"Only food grade and/or biodegradable (non-caustlc) chemicals be used in wash down systems (l isted grease extractors) or by vent cleaning contractors."

I ,

SUBSTANTIATION: Presently, extremely harsh chemicals such as potassium hyroxide and sodium hydroxide are being used in wash down systems and by cleaning contractors. These chemicals corrode aluminum and parts such as fan and fan housings are flushed through the drainage systems pollutlng the environment. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. [Q~TEE T ~ E M ~ : The Committee feels that this recommendation is beyond the scope of the Committee.

(Log #19) 96- 102 - (8-3.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William W. Bray, St., Air-Vent Systems, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Eliminate instructions to lock or pin protection devices before cleaning. SUBSTANTIATION: I f we, as a company specia l iz ing in the cleaning of kitchen grease exhaust systems, were to pin or lock the f i re extinguishing device, we could then be held l iable in the event the system did not operate when activated in case of an emergency. !TJ~II~tITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete "detection devices, and system components" from 8-3.3 and revise subsection to read as follows:

8-3.3 At the start of the cleaning process, electrical switches that may be accidentally activated shall be locked-out. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Meets the intent of the submitter.

(Log #4) 96- 103 - (8-3.5): Reject ~U.B_I~T~ER: Bruce M. Bowie, Francis E. Warren AFB WY Fire Department RECOMMENDATION: (Delete) in accordance with 7-3.2. ~TANTIATION: Paragraph 7-3.2 is not contained in NFPA 96. ~_OMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~OMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Action on Proposal 96-104 (Log #10).

(Log #10) 96- 104 - (8-3.5): Accept ~ : Rodney A. McPhee, Canadian Wood Council B[~_OMMENDATION: Change reference from "7-3.2" to "7-4.2." SUBSTANTIATION: Ed i to r i a l . 7-3.2 does not ex is t . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #20) 96- 105 - (8-3.5): Reject SUBMITTER: William W. Bray, Sr., Air-Vent Systems, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revised text:

8-3.5 Recommends "Returning system to operate state by qualified personnel in accordance with 7-3.2." SUBSTANTIATION: There is not a section 7, paragraph 3.2. ~_OMM_M_~TTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Proposal 96-104 (Log #10).

(Log #88) 96- 106 - (8-3.5): Accept SUBMITTER: Phi l ip O. Morton, Gaylord Industr ies, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change the reference to 7-3.2 in the paragraph to 7-4.2. SUBSTANTIATION: There is no 7-3.2 in the standard. I bel ieve th is is jus t an error . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #59) 96- 107 - (8-3.6 (New)): Reject SUBHITTER: Phll Ackland, Vancouver, B. C. RECOMMENDATION: New tex t :

"Vent cleaning contractors should provide proof of adequate insurance 1 l a b i l i t y to the author i ty having Ju r i sd i c t i on . "

774

SUBSTANTIATION: I t is assumed that the responsibility to have the exhaus.t system cleaued and maintained fa l ls to the owner of the establishment. Should the owner contract a cleaning contractor 1:o do this work, that cleaning contractor should recognize that he is accepting a degree of responsibility by having l i a b i l i t y insurance for the safety of the system. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. C_OMMI_TTEE STATEMENT: Outside scope of the Technical Committee.

(Log #89) 96- 108 - (9-1.2,3 (New)): Reject ~ : Philip O. Morton, G~lylord Industries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add a new section 9-I.2.3 to read as follows:

"Clearance from the exterior surface of any cooking equipment to combustible construction shall not be less than 18 in. This distance may be reduced to 3 in. provided the construction is at least 1 hour rated." SUBSTANTIATION: Presently, there are no standards for location of cooking equipment in relation to walls. A proper clearance for cooking equipment is just as important as clearances for hoods and duct systems. The 18 in. and 3 in. clearance referenced in this proposal parallels clearance requirements as referenced in I-3.2 and UMC paragraph 2003(d). CQMMITT~TION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The subject is already covered in 9-1.1 and 9-1.2.1 that requires that cooking equipment be l isted and installed in accordance with the terms of the l is t ing and the manufacturer's instructions.

(Log #26) 96- 109 - (9-2): Reject ~ : Joseph N. Knapp, McDonald's Corporation R_~COMMENDATION: Change the existing paragraph to read as fol1'ows:

"Deep fat fryers shall be equipped with two separate high l imit controls in addition to the adjustable operating control (thermostat) to shut off fuel or energy. The f i r s t high l imi t may be automatic reset and in the same circui t as the thermostat, and shall operate when the shortening temperature reaches between d00 and 425 deg. F (204 and 218 deg. C), I in. (25.4 mm) below the surface. The second high l imi t shall be manual reset and in a separate circuit from the f i r s t high l imi t and thermostat, and shall operate when the shortening temperature reaches between 425 and 475 deg. F (218 and 246 deg. C), I in. (25.4 mm) below the surface. $_~BSTANTIATION: This is not so much a problem as i t is a statement of currently applied technology. For many years now, al l gas and electric fryers sold in the U.S. have been required to have dual high l imits, with the second being a manual reset. In electric fryers, the second high l imi t operates a second contractor dedicated to i t , and in gas fryers i t operates a second gas valve dedicated to i t . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. CO M~JI_TTEE S T A ~ : The Committee agreed with the submitter but fe l t that the concept needed further exploration.

(Log #90) 96- 110 - (10-1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Philip O. Morton, Gaylord Industries, Inc. R~COMMENDATION: Add the following standard:

NFPA 17A-1986, Standard for Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems SUBSTANTIATION: This is a new standard f i r s t published in 1986 and should be referenced. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

i (Log #100)i

96- 111 - (Appendix A): Reject ~ : Donald L. Griffes, New England Ventilation Technologies RECOMMENDATION: We argued for and received approval (Vermont) for construction of a F.C. sheet rockland metal stud assembly adjacent to the hood that allows us to mount the hood direct ly to the protected wall and seal i t . In.such an assembly there are no health hazards or restrictions to cleaning or harbors for vermin. When using this construction we seal all lateral edges and joints. I would recommend that this be considered an approved method in Appendix A. SUBSTANTIATION: We have found that when the clearance guide in Appendix A is used to protect a hood, other hazards occur that'usually conflict with health codes. A void or space of 3 in. or g in., makes inaccesslble the back, top and sometimes ends of the hood for cleaning. Also the I in. metal pans used in the 9 in. cr i ter ia, as well as the mineral wood bats of the 3 in. cr i ter ia prove a haven for vermin unless thoroughly sealed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. _COMMITTEE STATEMEN!: Insufficient data was presented to prove that no hazard exists with zero clearance to limited-combustible or combustible material.

(Log #11) 96- 112 - (A-I, A-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Rodney A. McPhee, Canadian Wood Council RECOMMENDATION: In conjunction with the proposal to revlse the requirements in Section I-3.2, theseltwo sections in the Appendix should be revised as follows.

a) Delete the Table from A-I and revise A-I to read: A-l Where 18 in. (457 mm) clearance is required to

unprotected combustible material, the clearance to combustible material may be reduced i f the combustible material is protected by an engineered construcEion system acceptable to the authority havino Jurisdiction or by the use of materials or products ITsted f~r protection purposes.

b) In A-2 change the word "shall" to "should." SUBSTANTIATION: a) The wording of this section is revised assuming the proposal to move the "Type of Protection" data into the body of the standard ils approved by the Technical Committee (see proposal on Section I-3.2).

b) Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal 96-18 (Log #5).

(Log #27) 96- 113 - ( A - l ) : Accept in P r l n c l p l e SUBMITTER: Ooseph N. Knapp, McDonald's Corporat ion RECOMMENDATION: Add f o l l o w i n g note at end of e x i s t i n g Sect ion A-1 Item 2:

NOTE: The p r o t e c t i o n is to be app l ied to the combust ib le cons t ruc t i on , not to the duct. The duct i s NEVER to be wrapped d l r e c t l y wi th any ma te r i a l s as i t cannot then d i s s i p a t e the heat as intended, and i t w i l l f a i l in a severe f i r e . :

SUBSTANTIATION: We f i nd tha t there are many engineers, and many loca l f i r e marshals who are s t i l l presc ' r ib ing tha t the ducts be wrapped d i r e c t l y to prov ide the c learance to combust ib les. Many tes ts have shown that d i r e c t l y wrapped duct w i l l f a i l in a severe f i r e as i t cannot d i s s i p a t e the heat as intended. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal 96-18 (Log #5).

775