# Domestic cooking appliances used in commercial buildings.



## mark handler

Take off from another thread

How many of you know the difference between Domestic cooking appliances used in commercial buildings and Domestic cooking appliances used for commercial purposes?

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?7462-Break-Room-appliances-counter-height-vs-ADA/page3


----------



## cda

Where does the term "commercial building" come from¿


----------



## mark handler

cda said:
			
		

> Where does the term "commercial building" come from¿


It comes from "the other thread" Break Room appliances/counter height vs ADA

Some have implied the use of a type 1 or two hood for "Domestic cooking appliances" used in commercial buildings


----------



## cda

Well I am in that club

If someone wants to go to sears and buy a gas stove and start cooking hamburgers on it in joe's restaurant, than they need a type I hood.


----------



## mark handler

cda said:
			
		

> If someone wants to go to sears and buy a gas stove and start cooking hamburgers on it in joe's restaurant, than they need a type I hood.


Correct, But if that same stove is put in an office building so an office worker can warm up a can of soup?


----------



## cda

More than likely not, but would never say never


----------



## fatboy

We beat the devil out of this before......nobody changed anybody's mind. Case by case here, we tend to go to, if it's not residential, it's commercial first. Hood required.


----------



## steveray

We're with FB on this one.....if the customer is not happy with that, there is an interpretation and modification process through the State Building Inspectors office.....


----------



## jar546

If it is not a one or two family dwelling, this is a case closed situation.  A "residential" stove in a commercial building, not within a dwelling unit needs a hood.  We have fought this battle a few times.

I don't see a code change coming any time soon on this without opening up a large loophole.


----------



## globe trekker

Here, the FCO says that you can have a Residential stove in a Commercial setting without a hood,

as long as you remove the "top of the stove" burners / heating elements, otherwise install the

hood or remove the stove altogether.



> We beat the devil out of this before


Let the beating resume!   :beatdhrs.


----------



## jim baird

gt,

pardon my ignorance.  What is FCO?  Fire Commissioner's Office?

This is a recurrent problema around here too.


----------



## Darren Emery

2009 IMC - 507.2 Where required. A type I or type II hood shall be installed at or above all _commercial cooking appliances..._

I don't know that a four burner residential range in the break room of a finacial office (3 occupants, including secretary) really needs a type I hood.  By definition, that is NOT a commerical cooking appliance.

And the debate continues...


----------



## globe trekker

jim b.,

My apologies sir!   "FCO" (here) stands for Fire Code Official.

.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept

*An example of how this backfires on us:* _We approve a residential stove for a financial office break-room without a hood.  Limited usage, no chili competitions, etc.  Everybody is okay with this, mechanical engineer is not worried about grease build-up in duct work system.  Approved.  Business grows, and needs more space.  They move out.  Day-care moves in.  Day-care wants to know why we are now requiring a residential stove that didn't have one before.  Discussion goes back and forth on usage.  Building owner and tenant provide letter of operations describing limits of usage.  We settle on a Type II hood with a posted sign indicating limitations of hoods and prohibited uses.  A signed letter is provided by tenant and owner on agreement and BO's right to revoke agreement. _

Not a perfect solution by any means IMO.


----------



## globe trekker

Papio,

That letter, that you require, will provide documentation that that particular tenant

WAS advised (in writing) to not use that stove in a non-approved manner.

That way, after the fires are put out and it goes to court, you can simply pull out

that letter and submit it as evidence of "We told `em not to use that stove that

way judge!" It's definitely a CYA Factor!   It helps to substantiate your case, maybe

not win, but it DOES help to build a positive case for the jurisdiction' side.

.


----------



## cda

globe trekker said:
			
		

> Papio,That letter, that you require, will provide documentation that that particular tenant
> 
> WAS advised (in writing) to not use that stove in a non-approved manner.
> 
> That way, after the fires are put out and it goes to court, you can simply pull out
> 
> that letter and submit it as evidence of "We told `em not to use that stove that
> 
> way judge!" It's definitely a CYA Factor!   It helps to substantiate your case, maybe
> 
> not win, but it DOES help to build a positive case for the jurisdiction' side.
> 
> .


Or when they are cooking hamburgers on top and you walk in,

Tell them to stop and no cooking till they get a type I hood


----------



## ICE

I have seen a hubcap and a can of Sterno serve as a commercial kitchen.  Hood required?


----------



## Mac

I might be inclined to let them have a range without a Type I hood. The range may be in a commercial building, but is it being used "for commercial purposes"? Is the requirement for the hood really intended for this application? Do people do serious cooking - and sell meals - in the break room at work? I think the code language is more correctly meant for "commercial food service" places instead of any non-domestic use.

Anybody check the commentary?


----------



## gbhammer

Is a day care with a domestic stove that is used once a day to cook lunch a "_commercial food service establishment_"

The IMC commentary (*507.2.3 Domestic cooking appliances used for commercial purposes*) which is not code says: "Again, it is important for the CO to examine the frequency, duration and nature of the cooking operation(s) before determining whether an exhaust hood is required for a particular kitchen facility."

At some point as an AHJ you make choices based off common sense, or occasionally a choice is made because of pressure from the HBA or any other entity that has the ear of a political authority. In our jurisdiction we have taken the view point in situations like these that it is overkill to require a type I hood over a domestic appliance used for limited food preparation mostly because we do not consider these occupancies to be a commercial food service establishment. It may turn out to be a poor policy, and as in any situation where safety is involved we hope the choice is not going to cost a life.


----------



## globe trekker

Agree with gbhammer!

Here, the common sense approach, by our Fire Code Official, is to remove the "top

of the stove" burners / heating elements, or the stove entirely, or they can install

the Type I hood, or the business / property owners can sign a letter stating that

the fire dept. will not respond to any fires on that property. Options ARE provided!

As I understand it, there is statistical data to support claims fires DO occur (on a

Residential stove in a commercial setting / office / other). Also, because the FCO here

"has skin in the game", he DOES have a strong case to require compliance.

FWIW, this topic comes up regularly around these parts. The various business

owners sing the same tune here. itty

.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept

gbhammer said:
			
		

> Is a day care with a domestic stove that is used once a day to cook lunch a "_commercial food service establishment_"


In this specific case, it was for service of over 100+ children.  They stated that, while most meals would be catered in, there would still be significant daily use for soups, special meal requirements, and warming beverages and formulas.  Based on this information, we felt, and the mechanical engineer agreed, a Type II hood was an appropriate compromise.  I am not sure if Milton would be pleased, but we felt some common sense was exercised, and prevailed (I am sure there are those will disagree).

In another similar circumstance, there was a commercial dishwasher being used, in addition to a stove that was used to prepare all 100+ meals each day (no catering) in their dedicated cafeteria area.  These are vastly different animals than the 30-50 kid day-cares we were used to seeing in the past, and in our opinion are testing the invisible line between what is and is not commercial use.  They tend to be full sized kitchens with 3-comp sinks, multiple coolers/fridges, stoves, dishwashers, and micro-waves (some of these are even commercial grade).  They are challenging projects, and this day-care even had a shower room and a time-out room/closet, which I had to require to meet the minimum room dimensions.


----------



## mark handler

Why is common sense not so Common

A change of occupancy should require an inspection. If there is a change from an office to a daycare center with 100 plus kids you will need more restroom facilities as well. that is the time you require the "hood"


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept

ICE said:
			
		

> I have seen a hubcap and a can of Sterno serve as a commercial kitchen.  Hood required?


 yes, you should require they use a _car_ hood instead of a hub-cap, unless you have adopted special energy conservation by-laws


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept

mark handler said:
			
		

> Why is common sense not so Common


IMHO, it has a lot to do with the CYA culture that exists today.  But then again, maybe it has been, and always will be, a rarity.


----------



## jim baird

gt,

Would burner removal spoil listing of cooking equipment?

BTW at a "group shelter" at a nearby state park I have seen what looks like a locally made hood with fire suppression equipment made from a portable fire extinguisher that had a pull-chain rigged to it.

Over a standard domestic range.

Looked pretty good, actually...was built prior to inspection adoption in these parts.


----------



## gbhammer

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> In this specific case, it was for service of over 100+ children.  They stated that, while most meals would be catered in, there would still be significant daily use for soups, special meal requirements, and warming beverages and formulas.  Based on this information, we felt, and the mechanical engineer agreed, a Type II hood was an appropriate compromise.  I am not sure if Milton would be pleased, but we felt some common sense was exercised, and prevailed (I am sure there are those will disagree).  In another similar circumstance, there was a commercial dishwasher being used, in addition to a stove that was used to prepare all 100+ meals each day (no catering) in their dedicated cafeteria area.  These are vastly different animals than the 30-50 kid day-cares we were used to seeing in the past, and in our opinion are testing the invisible line between what is and is not commercial use.  They tend to be full sized kitchens with 3-comp sinks, multiple coolers/fridges, stoves, dishwashers, and micro-waves (some of these are even commercial grade).  They are challenging projects, and this day-care even had a shower room and a time-out room/closet, which I had to require to meet the minimum room dimensions.


Pretty much how we do it to the tee.


----------



## gbhammer

Common sense comes and goes as the politicians and Director/CO's change in their elected or appointed positions.

That is why its so nice to have an archive being built with this forum.


----------



## globe trekker

> Would burner removal spoil listing of cooking equipment?


No! They can still use the baking oven to cook something, ..just nothing on the stove top! Too muchstatistical data ( around here anyway) that supports fires being started on the stove tops! We love

our greasy fried foods and food products around here, and stove top type fires have been

(statistically) common. It is getting better though! The fire dept. does make regular visits to all

of the businesses checking for the compliant type of portable fire extinguishers and smoke alarms.

.


----------



## brudgers

gbhammer said:
			
		

> In our jurisdiction we have taken the view point in situations like these that it is overkill to require a type I hood over a domestic appliance used for limited food preparation


  Leaving aside the interesting choice of the word "overkill" in a life-safety situation for the moment...  If the food preparation is so limited that a hood is overkill, then certainly a stove and oven is overkill for the level of food preparation.

  In other words, if it's just for heating soup, a microwave is more than suitable and there is no need for a range and stove.

  I'd even go so far as letting two or three microwaves slide without a hood in deference to common sense.

  But the only reason someone needs a range and stove is to allow them to do the sort of activities which necessitate a hood.


----------



## brudgers

mark handler said:
			
		

> Why is common sense not so Common


  Uh...that's why the code requires a hood.


----------



## mark handler

brudgers said:
			
		

> Uh...that's why the code requires a hood.


No

That is your interpretation.

Code requires a hood in commercial cooking facilities not in all commercial occupancies


----------



## brudgers

505 covers domestic appliances in dwellings.

  507.2.3 covers domestic appliances used for commercial purposes.

  There's nothing unusual about this.

  NFPA 101 has exactly the same approach - if you want to cook in a structure other than a dwelling, then you have to wear big girl undies.

  Hey, at least now you know how to do it right.


----------



## gbhammer

mark handler said:
			
		

> No That is your interpretation.
> 
> Code requires a hood in commercial cooking facilities not in all commercial occupancies


:agree Brudgers you are applying your own interpretation which really means about next to nothing since the final decision is for the CO. That’s not to say that if you as the DP on a project call out for a type I hood, that I wouldn't be happy for it.


----------



## fireguy

jim baird said:
			
		

> gt,Would burner removal spoil listing of cooking equipment?
> 
> BTW at a "group shelter" at a nearby state park I have seen what looks like a locally made hood with fire suppression equipment made from a portable fire extinguisher that had a pull-chain rigged to it.
> 
> Over a standard domestic range.
> 
> Looked pretty good, actually...was built prior to inspection adoption in these parts.


Do you have any pictures of that?  I saw something similar in a commercial resturant, with a non-compliant hood.  I declined to service the "suppression system". But,w e both agreed I was not welcome in the establishment.


----------



## gbhammer

brudgers said:
			
		

> 505 covers domestic appliances in dwellings.  507.2.3 covers domestic appliances used for commercial purposes.
> 
> There's nothing unusual about this.
> 
> NFPA 101 has exactly the same approach - if you want to cook in a structure other than a dwelling, then you have to wear big girl undies.
> 
> Hey, at least now you know how to do it right.


Maybe if we put a closet in the breakroom and a full bathroom we can call it the "Night Watchman's Room", and then it will be an R use (no hood yeah) wait no its a B because it has no egress window and the couch that the guy sleeps on is not a bed, so it has to be a B, but ahg the shower isn't ADA compliant, and they are using the private office exception so no one can use the break room. Ah ha no one uses the room then why a hood at all. We should take out the closet so we can get away with out having egress windows, and take out the couch so we can keep from sprinkling the building.


----------



## mark handler

Commercial purposes is not a office worker warming up lunch

I am glad that in 35 years in the business, I have never met a BO that was not wise enough to understand the difference.

With that rational if someone wants a couch in their office it is a dwelling because they may fall asleep on it and it becomes a sleeping room….

This make me glad I'm on the west coast.....


----------



## gbhammer

What about a high school home ec class room where the stoves are used all day long for 6 periods teaching kids how to cook, do you require a hood of either type or none at all.


----------



## mark handler

gbhammer said:
			
		

> What about a high school home ec class room where the stoves are used all day long for 6 periods teaching kids how to cook, do you require a hood of either type or none at all.


High risk and high likelihood there will be a fire in a classroom environment, not the same as warming up lunch

Occupancy Risk of an E vs B or M


----------



## Darren Emery

globe trekker said:
			
		

> or the business / property owners can sign a letter stating that
> 
> the fire dept. will not respond to any fires on that property. Options ARE provided!
> 
> .


That's not _really_ a viable option given to business owners, is it?  Surely you jest - I just can't read the tounge in cheek on that one...


----------



## globe trekker

> With that rational if someone wants a couch in their office it is a dwelling because theymay fall asleep on it and it becomes a sleeping room….


No disrespect Mark H., however, if and when it goes to litigation the prosecuting attorney willmost likely take this approach, ..that indeed that space was used for sleeping, therefore, it

must be a dwelling. Your Code Offical should have known this, now pay up! Unless the

defending legal team can present a strong, well document case law history, the AHJ could

have significant exposure.

I, personally, do not agree with this, but the legal (non-justice) system is what it is.

.


----------



## globe trekker

Darren,

I DID include property owners in my statement, not just business owners, but Yes,

it is a (as I understand it) statement that has been issued to another neighboring

jurisdiction. The other neighboring jurisdiction wants coverage of their buildings

and facilities,  without paying for it, ...they want & expect our jurisdiction to

respond to their emergencies, using our resources; including risking our fire troops

lives, at our expense.

FWIW, this setup is like a town / city / village within a county / parish / borough

and the county / parish / borough isn't wanting to pay for the services they have

received in the past. No homeowners are at risk, but a contract for the fire &

emergency response services is pending. Pending until someone is willing to

compensate this jurisdiction for the risks being efforted.

Would your AHJ be willing to send their resources (not just human) to a call,

without being compensated?

.


----------



## mark handler

Glad to see thereare rational BO's in VA

Commercial Kitchen Hoods

Commentary

The intent of this provision is to limit the danger of fire caused by the use of cooking equipment in establishments that are used as commercial food preparation establishments such as restaurants, banquet facilities, cafeterias or other commercial cooking facilities where cooking is the primary or central use of the building or facility. The likelihood of dangerous conditions developing within a kitchen where its use is minor in nature is small relative to the cost of a hood. This meets the intent of Section 102 of the Virginia Construction Code.

http://www.norfolk.gov/Planning/PDFFiles/Commercial_Kitchen_Hoods.pdf


----------



## gbhammer

They must have never heard of brudgers in VA, or they heard to much of him, hard to tell they didn't put a beware of dog sign up.


----------



## brudgers

gbhammer said:
			
		

> :agree Brudgers you are applying your own interpretation which really means about next to nothing since the final decision is for the CO. That’s not to say that if you as the DP on a project call out for a type I hood, that I wouldn't be happy for it.


  I wouldn't call out a hood.  Because there wouldn't be a stove.

  And the final decision is not for the BO.

  As this thread points out, just because you got a permit, it doesn't mean your building meets code.


----------



## brudgers

mark handler said:
			
		

> Commercial purposes is not a office worker warming up lunch I am glad that in 35 years in the business, I have never met a BO that was not wise enough to understand the difference.  With that rational if someone wants a couch in their office it is a dwelling because they may fall asleep on it and it becomes a sleeping room….  This make me glad I'm on the west coast.....


  And that's why an architect in California requires an engineer to sign off on any new building.


----------



## mark handler

brudgers said:
			
		

> And that's why an architect in California requires an engineer to sign off on any new building.


Not true, you don't know much about architecture in California


----------



## mark handler

gbhammer said:
			
		

> What about a high school home ec class room where the stoves are used all day long for 6 periods teaching kids how to cook, do you require a hood of either type or none at all.


Interesting interp from the CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

Mar 12, 2008 – Commercial Hood requirements for Domestic-type Cooking.

https://webapps1.sanantonio.gov/dsddocumentcentral/upload/CI2008006.pdf


----------



## brudgers

mark handler said:
			
		

> Interesting interp from the CITY OF SAN ANTONIO Mar 12, 2008 – Commercial Hood requirements for Domestic-type Cooking.  https://webapps1.sanantonio.gov/dsddocumentcentral/upload/CI2008006.pdf


  The life safety letter is a great example of how much twisting of reason people will go through to avoid basic life safety principles.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept

mark handler said:
			
		

> Interesting interp from the CITY OF SAN ANTONIOMar 12, 2008 – Commercial Hood requirements for Domestic-type Cooking.
> 
> https://webapps1.sanantonio.gov/dsddocumentcentral/upload/CI2008006.pdf


Thanks mark, that is an interesting interpretation.  I was curious why they didn't mention culinary institutes (B occupancy) in the educational occupancy interpretations.  The discussion really seems to center around volume, and that only correlated with monetary compensation in this case.  While, theoretically, I don't agree with that assessment, the reality of it may be a more common truth, rather than disproving absolutes.  There definitely is a gray area there that code language in it's current form does not adequately address (IMO)...but then again, even the obvious can be fuzzy depending on the eye of the beholder.

Have you seen any studies on the quantity of grease laden foods in relation to grease/duct fires where hoods are not installed?


----------



## BSSTG

Greetings,

According to my local health inspector (Tx), only commercial equipment may be installed in a commercial occupancy therefore requiring the appropriate hood according to the IMC. However, their definition of commercial cooking differs from some of those listed above. Commercial cooking is defined as those occupancies which serve for monetary gain which exludes churches, schools, fire stations and the like. These rules are according to the State of Texas according to him. I might add that I've never looked up those statutes myself and have not seen them. We beat this issue to death in a meeting with our county judge, mayor, various officials and some very ticked off bakery owners a couple of years ago.

This reiterates one of my main philosophies. "The longer I live the more I learn about crap I never wanted to know anything about." Some days I miss digging ditches!

BS


----------



## usshanebond12

It's not a dwelling place…hood is a must when using stove in commercial buildings. Why not to try food warmers or cook and hold cabinets..?


----------



## gbhammer

Welcome usshanebond12. Glad you chimed in.

Ok, were do you get the idea that a dwelling place has anything to do with the issue? please provide a code reference.


----------



## rnapier

Here we take the view that if the use of the stove is part of the service provided or used to sell items then it is commercial use. In this case a day care center, instructional programs or making hamburgers for sale would all be commercial use. Individuals cooking thier own lunch would not be commercial use.


----------



## gbhammer

The 2009 IMC commentary (I know it is not code) SECTION 507.2.1 is very clear about the fact that residential appliances in commercial occupancies do not always need a type I hood or even a hood at all. They use home ec classrooms, office break rooms, daycares, churches, and fire stations as the example of when a type I hood is most likely not going to be required.


----------



## brudgers

gbhammer said:
			
		

> The 2009 IMC commentary (I know it is not code) SECTION 507.2.1 is very clear about the fact that residential appliances in commercial occupancies do not always need a type I hood or even a hood at all. They use home ec classrooms, office break rooms, daycares, churches, and fire stations as the example of when a type I hood is most likely not going to be required.


  The fact that they use daycares as an example shows exactly why the commentary should be ignored.  You could be talking upward of 200 meals a day even in a moderate size facility.

  8 classes of 15 for breakfast and lunch (and possibly snacks).

  That's a 1000 or more meals a week.

  And more than 50,000 a year.


----------



## gbhammer

You're right, and that is why the code and commentary want the CO to determine the frequency, and duration of use before allowing domestic appliances to go with out hoods.


----------



## brudgers

gbhammer said:
			
		

> You're right, and that is why the code and commentary want the CO to determine the frequency, and duration of use before allowing domestic appliances to go with out hoods.


  That's all well and good...in theory.    But bad in practice.

    The typical life cycle of a commercial building is 40 years.

    That of a business entity...well, it's not so long.

    Does your department inspect every time a business license is issued?

  New occupants may use the kitchen more intensely than was previously assumed.


----------



## gbhammer

We have as a matter of fact just begun to require an occupancy permit and insprction for change of occupancy.


----------



## gbhammer

Brudgers in a post not that long ago you argued that just because a night watchman’s room looked like a bedroom did not mean he was going to be sleeping in it much, and that the building did not need to be sprinkled.

If I am to use you're logic from that post then in no way shape or form should I require a hood over a domestic stove that is used infrequently.

Now if I were to use you're ever changing logic as it is applied in this post to the night watch mans room then the next occupant might just decide to use that room as a bedroom and I should sprinkle the building.


----------



## brudgers

gbhammer said:
			
		

> We have as a matter of fact just begun to require an occupancy permit and insprction for change of occupancy.


 I'm not talking about a change of occupancy.  The original tenants, Reasonable Associates, CPA. moves out.

  The Anarchist Society for the Promotion of Flambe'  and Wok Cooking moves in.


----------



## brudgers

gbhammer said:
			
		

> Brudgers in a post not that long ago you argued that just because a night watchman’s room looked like a bedroom did not mean he was going to be sleeping in it much, and that the building did not need to be sprinkled.  If I am to use you're logic from that post then in no way shape or form should I require a hood over a domestic stove that is used infrequently. Now if I were to use you're ever changing logic as it is applied in this post to the night watch mans room then the next occupant might just decide to use that room as a bedroom and I should sprinkle the building.


  The code doesn't have an exception for infrequent use.  And the commentary contains an utterly unsupported interpretation.

  This is a case of black and white code based on the facts depicted on the plans or built into the actual structure.


----------



## Dr. J

I’m with Brudgers.

The 2009 IMC is pretty clear (clear that is except for the “commercial purposes” thing – more in a moment) that once it has been determined that the use of a residential stove is a “commercial purpose” you have no flexibility in the type of hood required.  A Type I hood is required for any medium duty appliance, no discussion of smoke or grease (this is a change from 2006).  Per the definition of a Medium Duty Appliance, anything that uses a hot surface for cooking , including a hot plate, a Kenmore stove, or a George Forman Grille is a Medium Duty Appliance.  This is because the code, as brudgers pointed out, recognizes that the only reason you need a hot cooking surface is to make grease and smoke.  If you don’t need to make grease and smoke, use a microwave.

The commercial purpose thing could have been better defined, but I do think there is a definition within the IMC that can be used consistently by an AHJ.  The definition of Commercial Cooking Appliance includes “For the purpose of this definition, a food service establishment shall include any building or a portion thereof used for the preparation and serving of food.”  Two things are required to be a “Food Service Establishment”; 1) preparation and 2) serving.  If food is prepared on a Kenmore range and then served, it is a food service establishment, and it is not that big a leap to say that a residential appliance is being used for the same purpose that a Commercial Cooking Appliance otherwise would be.  This creates a bright line that an AHJ can use – if the use is just so Bob can make lunch and feed just Bob, it is not Commercial Purpose.  However, if Bob serves Ted, Carol, and Alice it is a Commercial Purpose.

Yes, the above method requires believing the Owner’s description of the use of a space, but this is common throughout the code, such as the fact that the sofa in the night watchman’s office is just for when buddies come over.  I think this will separate most cases into obvious categories: stoves in office or factory lunch rooms or employee break rooms – not commercial.  Stoves in church assembly halls; child care facilities; fire stations; bed-and-breakfast lodgings; VFW and similar halls; cooking classrooms; cooking demonstration displays, and charity soup kitchens – commercial.

There will always be the grey areas, such as a stove in a rehab healthcare facility used by patients to re-learn skills, or group homes.  The users may cook just for themselves, but there could be a lot more meals prepared than a typical SFR.


----------



## Dr. J

Perhaps a policy to deal with the grey areas (and the whiners) is say either a Type I hood or no hood at all.  If the whiner insists there really and truly is no significant smoke and grease produced (don’t believe them if they say NO grease and smoke – use a microwave if there really ain’t any), then they should have no problem with no hood.  If the users were baldface lying and they really were going to deep-fry 1000 Twinkies a day, the grease and smoke will overwhelm the kitchen and they will get what they deserve.  But at least the grease will not be transported through concealed locations in leaky slip joint duct.  A residential or Type II hood would give a false sense of security to the Twinkie fryer, who would say to him/herself “Boy, I am glad that stuff is not blowing back in my face, I think I will fry another 1000”.  The chances of a grease fire on an un-hooded stove is the same regardless of how many times Twinkies have been fried there. However when grease has been purposely concentrated on a mesh filter inside a residential hood, and transported in leaky slip joint duct to an out of sight, out of mind place, the risk builds up over time, until the day before the papers print a “Tragedy at Twinkie Toddlers Daycare” headline.


----------



## Dr. J

And throw away that worthless Commentary.


----------



## Dr. J

Actually, you guys are really missing the true controversy:  If a residential appliance is being used for commercial purposes in an attic, what are the rise/run and handrail requirements?


----------



## fatboy

Bingo! Dr. J wins the prize!   :agree


----------

