# K Class



## cda (Nov 4, 2010)

Do you require a K Class fire extinguisher if there is no deep fat fryers or similar appliances???


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Nov 4, 2010)

No, it would be a waste of money.


----------



## TimNY (Nov 4, 2010)

904.11.5 (2003 IFC) only requires them when vegetable oil, animal oil or fats are involved.  By fats I would interpret that to mean a tub of lard.. not the fat on a steak.

Agree with FyrBldgGuy.


----------



## beach (Nov 4, 2010)

If using a UL 300 compliant, wet chemical extinguishing system for hood suppression....... Yes


----------



## TimNY (Nov 4, 2010)

beach said:
			
		

> If using a UL 300 compliant, wet chemical extinguishing system for hood suppression....... Yes


I never required them if no cooking oil present, but when I read it, the thought of incompatibility entered my mind.  However, I don't see where it would be required.  I just looked in my Ansul install manual and it simply says to "provide a fire extinguisher".

NFPA 10 (2002) says the extinguisher must be rated for the hazard.  Without oils you wouldn't have this class of fire.

Isn't the extinguisher to combat fire that might spread to unprotected areas?  I wasn't under the impression that the extinguisher was to be used under the hood if the hood couldn't put it out.

I don't see anything but UL 300 systems, so if I am making an error, I want to know!


----------



## beach (Nov 4, 2010)

In california, you can use UL 300, Co2 or automatic fire sprinkler systems. In our jurisdiction and most others around here, we only see UL 300, our Calif. Code of regulations states: Class K extinguishers shall be provided for hazards where there is a potential for fires involving combustible cooking media (Vegetable or animal oils and fats) Class K is also required for all solid fuel cooking appliances whether under a hood or not. Class K is compatible with UL 300.

"Wet Chemical fire extinguishers are the best restaurant kitchen appliance hand portable extinguisher available. The new extinguishers are tested and approved for Class K fires. They contain a potassium acetate based, low PH agent that was originally developed for use in pre-engineered cooking equipment fire extinguishing systems. The Class K extinguishers are tested on commercial deep fat fryers using the same type of fire test as UL300 pre-engineered restaurant fire extinguishing systems. The agent discharges as a fine mist which helps prevent grease splash and fire reflash while cooling the appliance. The Class K extinguisher is the ideal choice for use on all cooking appliances including solid fuel charbroilers."

If a grease fire occurs, we recommend leaving the kitchen and activating the manual pull station on the way out if possible, the fire dept. can utilize the class K, if needed, when the UL 300 runs out.


----------



## TimNY (Nov 4, 2010)

beach said:
			
		

> In california, you can use UL 300, Co2 or automatic fire sprinkler systems. In our jurisdiction and most others around here, we only see UL 300, our Calif. Code of regulations states: Class K extinguishers shall be provided for hazards where there is a potential for fires involving combustible cooking media (Vegetable or animal oils and fats) Class K is also required for all solid fuel cooking appliances whether under a hood or not. Class K is compatible with UL 300."Wet Chemical fire extinguishers are the best restaurant kitchen appliance hand portable extinguisher available. The new extinguishers are tested and approved for Class K fires. They contain a potassium acetate based, low PH agent that was originally developed for use in pre-engineered cooking equipment fire extinguishing systems. The Class K extinguishers are tested on commercial deep fat fryers using the same type of fire test as UL300 pre-engineered restaurant fire extinguishing systems. The agent discharges as a fine mist which helps prevent grease splash and fire reflash while cooling the appliance. The Class K extinguisher is the ideal choice for use on all cooking appliances including solid fuel charbroilers."
> 
> If a grease fire occurs, we recommend leaving the kitchen and activating the manual pull station on the way out if possible, the fire dept. can utilize the class K, if needed, when the UL 300 runs out.


Thanks for the insight.  What I meant to say was the incompatibility of something like a dry chem ABC extinguisher with the wet chem in the UL300 system.


----------



## FM William Burns (Nov 4, 2010)

A little late but I'm with Beach.  Maybe the CA requirement comes from NFPA 96.  Since our jurisdiction uses NFPA we require them as well:

"Portable extinguishers shall use agents that saponify upon contact with hot grease in accordance with NFPA 10 (Class K extinguishers)."


----------



## RJJ (Nov 7, 2010)

agree with beach and FM! Even with no deep fry set up. Never know what will be on the stove.


----------



## TimNY (Nov 7, 2010)

I'm on the fence.  Granted if your jurisdiction adopted 96, they are required.

True, we never know what will be on the stove-- it's a double-edged sword.

If the AAFES can't put out a fire on the stove top I would probably be evacuating rather than dumping an extinguisher.  FD could use them, but you never know what is in them so using somebody elses equipment is always a last resort.  I have gotten complaints from companies that have hydrotested cylinders.. when they dumped the extinguishers, what was in them was not extinguishing agent.

I do appreciate all the input though.. still pondering.


----------



## fireguy (Nov 13, 2010)

NFPA 10-2010, Section 5.5.5 Fire extinguishers provided for the protection of cooking appliances that use combustable cooking media (vegetable or animal oils and fats) shall be listed and labeled for Class K fires.

NFPA 10-2010 Section 5.5.5.2 Fire extingushers installed specifically for the protection of cooking appliances that use combustable cooking media (animal or vegetable oils and fats ) without a Class K rating shall be removed from service.

NFPA -2007 5.5.5.4 Existing dry chemical extinguishes without a Class K listing that were installed for the protection of Class K hazards shall be replaced with an extinguisher having a Class K listing  when the dry chemical extinguishers become due for either a 6-year maintenance or hydrostatic test.

5.5.5 are the same for the 2007 and 2010 edetion.  I interprept that statement as any quanity of oil or fats requires a K class FX.  How many times have you inspected a kitchen and found a large pan of oil used for cooking, or the container of melting margarine or butter on the grille?  I do not find a minimum or maximum amount of oil or fat that requires a Class K.  And while the current IMC and NFPA 96 have a minimum height above appliances for grease baffles, not all the hoods meet that requirement.  If we set that pot of oil on fire, it easy to have fire extension into the plenum, then the duct.

The second quote is new in NFPA 10-2010, and is a change from NFPA 10-2007.  In 2007, 40BC fX were allowed until a recharge, 6 year or HT was required.  At that time, the 40BC was to be replaced with a k Class.  In 2010, dry powder FX are to be removed and replaced with a Class K. If we are not allowed to removed the dry chemical from service, we write the defiency on the invoice and/or service report.  We do not tag or service the non-compliant extinguisher.  We have found instances of the insurance company writing up the existance of the non-compliant extinguisher.

I know you  cannot require conformance to a standard that has not been adopted by your jurisdiction, but as a private contractor, I am not under that constraint.  At one of our Oregon Fire Equipment Distributor meetings we had a  State Fire Marshall in attendance.  He was asked what we should do when the standards changed, but had not been adopted by the FM.  He said his opinion,  not an official FM policy,  was that we should adopt as our business practice the newest standard.  Most of us in attendance were already doing just that.  Recently, OR-FED asked the State FM office to adopt NFPA 17-2009, NFPA 17A-2009 and certain maintance sections of NFPA 96-2008.


----------



## fireguy (Oct 23, 2011)

http://www.nfpa.org/aboutthecodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=10&cookie%5Ftest=1

I do not know if a formal interpretation is part of the standard or not.


----------

