HELP!! NFPA 96 Standard 1991 or Older for Kitchen Hood Fight!!

I am hoping that someone can provide me with the reference(s) from NFPA 96 dating back to 1991 to as far back as 1987. I have the NFPA 96 as far back as 1998. I am fighting an Engineer who is claiming that a non-listed kitchen hood of riveted and screwed-together construction that was fabricated (looks like fabricated in someones garage) in about 1990/91 is in compliance for the addition of a range and oven and that nothing needs to be changed! Prior to the addition of the stove/range, there was just a steamer underneath. In which case it WAS fine then because it was considered a Type II hood. But with the addition of the stove/range, and the introduction of grease laden vapors, a Type I hood is now required. He considers Fire Inspectors to be uneducated/uncertified and unqualified (as stated in previous meetings with this idiot) and keeps referring to older editions apply because the building was constructed in/about 1990-91 and that code is the code that would still apply in this case.

Personally, I believe the hood didn't even meet code at the time it was constructed/installed, but there was no fire code enforcement in place at that time, so it was kind of an "anything goes" Wild West mentality then.

The sections/codes that I am looking for from NFPA 96 pertains to construction of the hoods themselves, and stating that they shall be constructed of a liquid tight, continuous weld to the hoods outermost perimeter as stated in the newer editions of 96. I have scoured Google and other search engines and cannot find the 96 reference I am looking for to win this fight. I've got a copy of a memo dated November 6th, 1992 (which I believe would be spelled out in the 1991 or 1987 Edition of NFPA 96) referring to hoods of riveted construction not meeting code, but I need the code chapter, paragraph and section word-for-word. I am hoping to prove this guy wrong, and want to go into the meeting (scheduled for just after the New Year) armed with this info and hopefully end this argument once and for all and force them to replace the existing hood.

First of all, where are you located and what are the codes currently in place? If you are currently under the most recent editions of the ICC codes (which most states are- or some kind of a modified version of the ICC codes) you dont previous NFPA standards or editions, only the current codes that you fall under.

What he is saying about the building being grandfathered in is totally irrelevant- They are doing an alteration/modification to the existing system/layouts (hopefully under a building permit) which under the 2009 Building and Mechanical Codes clearly require type I hoods constructed (IIRC) minumum of .30 gauge metal, of welded or other seamless construction suitable for grease-laden vapors as you stated. Current codes do not allow for old, un-approved equipment which is not designed for the purpose.

Additionally, why are YOU doing the work for him? Make HIM cough up the documents. It's your job to prove your case- in this case (assuming your jurisdiction is under current codes) to show the roadmap of how you came to your conclusion which in this case is the IMC/IBC (forgive me I cant remember the sections off the top of my head right now.) I would deny the permit based on "unapproved equipment that does not meet the requirements of sections ........ and/or .......of the 2009 IMC as adopted by enter your jurisdiction's name here." If he wants to appeal it to your building code board of appeals, let him. But make him do the work- if you do indeed fall under current codes, azzholes like him will start doing the research, realize you are right, and will have to come back to you eating some crow sandwich.

An example of him not having to change anything- if someone were to do an U & O inspection (like if the place is sold to a new owner) or a fire inspection of the place, and wrote a violation for the originally installed system being used incorrectly according to today's codes, then that would be a matter of "grandfathering."

If you need more help, email me at yardo@rcn.com. I am a code enforcement official/fire marshal/plans examiner in the State of Pa.

Here's a sample rejection letter:

December 21, 2012

ABC Engineering, Inc.
Swelled Head, PE
123 Main Street
Anytown, Pa. 11111

RE: Permit submittal package (kitchen alterations), 321 Main Street, Anytown Pa. 11111

Dear Mr. Head,

Anytown Code Enforcement is in receipt of the permit application package for the above-referenced project. We have the following comments and requirements:

1. The plans submitted do not include manufacturer's cut sheets for the proposed oven/range to be installed; however it is assumed by this office that it is to be a type I oven/range as defined in section xxx.xx.x of the 2009 International Mechanical Code (as adopted by Anytown Pa.)
2. Section xxx.xx.x of the 2009 International Mechanical Code requires that any type I oven/range installed in an A-2 use group building of type xx combustible construction (as defined by the 2009 International Mechanical, Fire and Building Codes) be protected by a type I hood meeting the requirments of the referenced codes. The plans which have been submitted do not meet the requirements set by the referenced codes.
3. The submitted plans do not include a fire suppression system as required by the referenced codes. Please submit a full hood fire suppression system package including cut sheets of all devices, alarm system and energy disconnect interface wiring diagrams, energy cut off devices, agent system, etc.

The permit package is rejected at this time, once we have modified plans in hand, we will continue with the plan review process. Please resubmit 2 (two) copies of all plans, specifications, mechanical calculations, and cut sheets on a hood system/installation which meets the requirements of the referenced codes. Drawings/specifications shall be signed and sealed by an engineer licensed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 123-456-7890.

Sincerely,
Mr. Fire Inspector
Anytown Code Enforcement

So the only problem you see are the rivets???

Does it have a place for filters??

Is the duct gage to code??

Will it or does it have an extinguishing system


As suggested have person submit code sections they think makes it up to code

You can also require them to provide a technical report for your review, from a third party that you approve

Turn on your private message and post when done

http://fedot.org/newsletter/sept_2007.pdf

I know the above does not help you BUT it is a good resource for wet chemical systems and what meets the UL 300 std.

The link above on page 3 "WHAT IS A UL-300 COMPLIANCE SYSTEM? provides a good overview of various manufactures of wet chemical systems and what to look for. I printed it out and use it in the field to figure out what systems comply and do not. Yes I still find systems that do not comply.






Example below


Ansul Incorporated


Ansul made both Wet and Dry Chemical Fire Systems prior to November 21, 1994 but has only manufactured Wet Chemical and Piranha Systems since that date; therefore there can be no Dry Chemical Systems (R-100 or R-101) that are UL-300 compliant. The only accurate way to determine vintage of an R-102 Wet Chemical System is to read the date code information on the regulator. There is a date code identifier chart in the Manual. ANSULEX Cylinders can be moved around so using cylinder information as a determi- nation tool can be inaccurate. Ansul began to state that a cylinder was UL-300 compliant on cylinder nameplates but have bulletins that state that pre-UL-300 cylinders are identical to UL-300 cylinders except for the label. The diaphragm style regulator was obsolete prior to November 1994 so only the piston style regulators will be eligible to be date code traced. All Ansul Piranha Systems are UL-300 Standard Compliant.

I work on a Federal (Government) installation. I ended up purchasing the download for NFPA 96 1987 and 1991 editions (this particular facility was constructed around 1991-92) Unfortunately we are not under ICC Codes, we are still under NFPA Codes. But our fight is with one of the Engineers from another division on our installation. Everything turns into an argument with this guy, he would argue the color of the sky with you just for the sake of arguing, that is how bad it is!!
I have everything I need now to prevail in THiS fight (until the next one) to force them to replace the existing hood. The hood doesn't have continuous external welds, is not liquidtight or greasetight, does not have a slanted drip tray beneath the filters, the exhaust terminates 28.5in. above the roof surface (NFPA 96 requires 40in.) The upblast fan is not listed for commercial cooking, theres a flexible electrical conduit in the duct, duct-to-hood collar connection is improper, etc. I took lots of photos!! Thanks to all who posted comments or suggestions! I'll let you know how I make out on this fight (our meeting is on the 4th)

Contact the city of St. Paul: Angie Wiese. She is the cities fire protection engineer and extremely knowledgeable in these types of issues. Drop her a quick email.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fireguyminn

I work on a Federal (Government) installation.

---

I was an 0081 GS7-6 Firefighter/EMT/Inspector at Aberdeen Proving Ground for 10 years (plus time as an 0081 FF for the USN as well....) Why is this guy being such a pain in the azz, nevermind the fact that you are even allowing him to be a pain your azz.....Has the Govmt gone soft on fire protection in the 8 years I have been gone? When I was still in, if something- especially a kitchen suppression system was out of compliance and there were alterations/renovations being done- the property holder (whatever activity was "renting" the building from the garrison) was responsible for full, up-to-date compliant upgrades no questions asked- "you will do it and you will like it." What does your Command FPS have to say? How about the FACCOMM area fire marshal? I would have started by telling this engineer to shut his yap (politely....then a little more obviously) and then I would have gotten the Garrison command involved, and if THAT didnt work then the area FM.......

Whats going on here? What branch of the service??

Okay, time for an update:

The kitchen hood that I had been fighting to get replaced, is going to be replaced. We met today, and pretty much argued for the better part of an hour, but I stuck to my guns and refused to back down (this particular "Engineer" likes to try to use intimidation). He then tried to claim I was applying the code retroactively: Hmmm. . . . . Building in question was built around 1991/92 time frame, and I was quoting NFPA 96 1987 Edition, there was a UL-300 system installed in 2001, but they are changing the usage of the kitchen. . . . . . where exactly was I trying to "retroactively" apply a code!?!?!? Almost gotta laugh!! You really can't make this stuff up!!! I was trying to prove the hood did not meet code when it was installed (neither did the duct, nor did the fan). A couple weeks ago when I used a more recent edition of NFPA 96 (2008) he tried to say that I couldn't apply that, because the hood was older than that. Then he tried to claim there would be no grease laden vapors, and it actually got down to arguing terms from NFPA referencing "grease and smoke" vs. "grease or smoke". The 1987 NFPA 96 states "grease and smoke", whereas the 2001 NFPA 96 states "grease or smoke" His contention was there would be no grease produced while cooking, only some smoke. So we were arguing over "And" and "Or"!!! Are you friggen serious??? Even after it had been determined that I in fact was correct, and that the hood did NOT meet code at time of install, he still tried to beat that dead old horse even after it had been buried 6-feet under!!!
He just would NOT give up! But after it was done, and the higher-ups who hold the purse-strings were 100% convinced that I was correct, they told him to just give it up. Like I said, this guy would argue the color of the sky with you just for the sake of arguing. I think it's a case of the Fire Prevention Program where I work is relatively new, and he had been so used to doing things his way for so long, that he cannot stand to be told any different. Well, he was told different today! It feels good to end the week on that note!
That is where we were, at the Garrison Command Offices today. It's sad that it really had to go that far!! This wasn't the first big disagreement with this guy, and I am sure it will not be the last. He's thankfully supposedly retiring soon, and his replacement (who was also present) seems to have a little more sense.