# Tell me what you think....



## Marshal Chris (Dec 1, 2010)

Seriously.  What do you think of this?  a violation?  No problem?

View attachment 1449


View attachment 1449


/monthly_2010_12/hood.jpg.2a0b3dea9fb880789bda40661f611901.jpg


----------



## cda (Dec 1, 2010)

gaps in the filters?

proper filters??

are the appliances properly protected?

is the plenum area proerly protected??

maybe a question of what shut down, when the system dumps

hood supported properly??


----------



## Marshal Chris (Dec 1, 2010)

Well the hood itself was issued a compliance certificate in 94. They are upgrading system to ul300. The question really becomes is your thoughts on the doorway to the adjoining space underneath the hood.


----------



## fatboy (Dec 1, 2010)

I don't there that having an oversized hood that you may or may not be walking under is a violation.


----------



## JBI (Dec 1, 2010)

At least the door's not labeled as an Exit! (Don't laugh... actually have seen it)


----------



## Dr. J (Dec 1, 2010)

When the guy walking next to the range catches fire smoke and grease could be produced.  Type I hood is appropriate.

Eww - sorry for that.

I guess the code does not prohibit a hood from covering more than it needs to.  From a practical standpoint, traffic past the range will upset the plume and will result in loss of capture.  Also, more CFM is being exhausted than needs to be.


----------



## High Desert (Dec 1, 2010)

LMOA Dr. J. I know someone that thinks exactly like that. We call them ARCO's in Oregon. (Anal Retentive Code Officials)

I don't see a violation, just a wasted design.


----------



## globe trekker (Dec 2, 2010)

Marshall Chris,

Since this is food service establishment, check with your local Health Dept. on their requirements.

Theirs may be more stringent than the building dept.   Also, is that a Type "K" portable fire

extinguisher?

.


----------



## fireguy (Dec 2, 2010)

That is a K class FX, sold by Buckeye, made by Amerex. I do not like the location, too close to the range.  I do not see a sign as per NFPA 10-2010  Section 5.5.5.3  The exhaust air movement would be comprimised by the doorway, as would intake air.  But if this was inspected in 1994, it probably met code.  Lots has been learned about air movement in the last 16 years.  The filters are crap, but probably meet the UL standard.  I do not think ICC references a filter standard. Aluminum filters do not last long and do not hold up to the intense temperatures found in hood fires. There should be a panel to close the gap between the filters. I would remove all the filters not over cooking appliances and install metal panels. Not all of hte filters are installed properly.  Note how some filters are in the grease tray, obstructing hte movement of grease to the collection can.   Do the ceiling tiles meet code for the fire resitance?  The gap between the top of hood and tile looks ok.  The junction between the hoods needs to be checked to insure a liqued tight weld. I cannot tell the brand of fire system from the nozzles, but the nozzle over the range appears to meet current mfg requirements.  But, if it is an Ansul system, there was a change in regulators between pre-UL300 and current UL300.  Another picture of the of the hood,  duct, make-up air outlet, exhaust fan,  the fire suppression system tank and control panel would help.

  Is it OK to print the picture so my guys can argue the merits of this install?  I would like to know how many problems they find.


----------



## Marshal Chris (Dec 2, 2010)

Well, there are a host of several violations at the site.  I don't like where the wet chem is either.  Also, it was just hydrostatically tested and has no verification of service collar ring.  The LPR nozzles over the range are not proper and the usual extenion cords.

What happened with regards to this design is this is a new tenant and doesn't need the side hood that's there but doesn't want to upgrade it if he doesn't have to.

Fireguy, have at it with the pictures.  I have pictures of other  violations on my phone I can send you.


----------



## Marshal Chris (Dec 2, 2010)

Now, would you consider that area part of the means of egress which requires 7 foot ceiling clearance?


----------



## fireguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Marshal Chris said:
			
		

> Well, there are a host of several violations at the site.  I don't like where the wet chem is either.  Also, it was just hydrostatically tested and has no verification of service collar ring.  The LPR nozzles over the range are not proper and the usual extenion cords.What happened with regards to this design is this is a new tenant and doesn't need the side hood that's there but doesn't want to upgrade it if he doesn't have to.
> 
> Fireguy, have at it with the pictures.  I have pictures of other  violations on my phone I can send you.


Pictures like that are good, it makes all of us think and learn.  Can you post the pictures here, so we can all shake our heads at what occurs in the real world?  The comments of others are what make this activity a learning experience.


----------



## north star (Dec 3, 2010)

*~ ~ ~ ~*

Marshall Chris asked:



> Now, would you consider that area part of the means of egress which requires 7 foot ceiling clearance?


In looking at Section 3403.1 - EXISTING STRUCTURES [ `06 IBC ], I don't believe that you can ' require 'the 7 ft. clearance.

From Section 3403.1 - ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS OR REPAIRS. "*Existing buildings or **structures.*

"Additions or alterations to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of the

code for new construction........Additions or alterations shall not be made to an existing building

or structure that will cause the existing building or structure to be in violation of any provisions

of this code......An existing building plus additions shall comply with the height and area provisions

of Chapter 5........Portions of the structure not altered and not affected by the alteration are not

required to comply with the code requirements for a new structure."

*~ ~ ~ ~*


----------



## Marshal Chris (Dec 3, 2010)

Well, this was an alteration without a permit.  That door wasn't original and that other space used to be another tenant space and was part of the "altered" area.


----------



## north star (Dec 3, 2010)

*= = = =*

Then it sounds like it is time to move the exhaust hood and provide

the required head clearance.   :-o



*= = = =*


----------

