# 0 clearance kitchen hood



## BSSTG (May 27, 2015)

Greetings,

Last week I was at the seminar at UT Arlington and was told that there is a type I kitchen hood that has been evaluated and can be used with zero clearance to combustibles. Unfortunately I didn't get the particulars on this hood type.

Would any of you fine folks have any info on this hood system?

thanksabunch

BSSTG


----------



## TheCommish (May 27, 2015)

I had a McDonald's,  they had their hood tested specially so that the back of the hood and wall behind the  equipment could be on a Sheetrock over wood frame wall. the duct still had to be warped and had clearance to the wood trusses

I  might be able to dig out the  information from the file at work


----------



## Dbronson (May 27, 2015)

BSSTG:

Both Greenheck & Captiveaire have hoods that can be configured for zero clearance.

Regards,

DB


----------



## cda (May 27, 2015)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> Greetings,Last week I was at the seminar at UT Arlington and was told that there is a type I kitchen hood that has been evaluated and can be used with zero clearance to combustibles. Unfortunately I didn't get the particulars on this hood type.
> 
> Would any of you fine folks have any info on this hood system?
> 
> ...


you were?  I was there Wednesday only


----------



## BSSTG (May 28, 2015)

cda said:
			
		

> you were?  I was there Wednesday only


yessir. Did my RAS and TMEL CE and filled in the rest of the week with an extra elect, mech, and plumbing plan review courses. The guy doing the mechanical was great too. This was by 5th year to go up there. I do the one in Houston too. Great bang for the buck! And while I'm there I make my annual pilgrimage to Hooter's for some wangs. (3 mile island specifically) It's a long way to Hooter's from where I live. Just as well. there dang sure not on my low sodium diet!

BS


----------



## cda (May 28, 2015)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> yessir. Did my RAS and TMEL CE and filled in the rest of the week with an extra elect, mech, and plumbing plan review courses. The guy doing the mechanical was great too. This was by 5th year to go up there. I do the one in Houston too. Great bang for the buck! And while I'm there I make my annual pilgrimage to Hooter's for some wangs. (3 mile island specifically) It's a long way to Hooter's from where I live. Just as well. there dang sure not on my low sodium diet!BS


You need to try Pluckers next time in town


----------



## rgrace (Aug 3, 2015)

I have been looking into this topic since 2010, when it was first presented to me. The hoods that I dealt with claiming zero clearance to combustibles (or reduced clearances) were based on tests taken out of the 1995 Edition of UL 710. This edition does not cover any question regarding clearance to combustibles. We did not approve these hoods for their reduced clearances based on the documentation presented. This year, during the ICC Committee Action Hearings, a proposal was submitted to permit reduced clearances to combustibles for Type I hoods. The proposal was based on information added to the 2012 Edition of UL 710. The new information contained provisions for reduced clearances to combustibles for Type I hoods. The proposal was approved by the committee, but still has to make it through the ICC Public Comment Hearings at the end of September. If it goes through, this proposal will be included in the 2018 IMC. My jurisdiction recently adopted the 2012 ICC Codes. To consider approving a Type I hood for reduced clearances to combustibles based on UL 710 in my jurisdiction, one would have to submit a code modification request asking that the (possible/probable) language contained in a future edition of the code (two editions forward) be used as a basis of approval. That in itself is a stretch, but not impossible. The problem would be determining which hoods are tested to the 2012 Edition of UL 710 and which were tested to the 1995 edition that didn't include those provisions. If that were not possible, IMC 304.1 states "Where conflicts between this code and the conditions of listing or the manufacturer's installation instructions occur, the provisions of this code shall apply." Until my jurisdiction adopts the 2018 IMC, there is a conflict between IMC 507.9 and what the manufacturer is providing for reduced clearances to combustibles.


----------



## cda (Aug 3, 2015)

Models ND-2 are ETL Listed under file number 3054804-001 and complies with UL710, ULC710 and ULC-S646 Standards.

Clearance to Combustibles: Standard built in 3" rear standoff to meet NFPA 96 requirements, when installed in a wall application.

Maybe the clearance is there?

http://www.captiveaire.com/CATALOGCONTENT/HOODS/ND2/index.ASP?catid=291


----------



## rgrace (Aug 3, 2015)

FYI, NFPA 96 is referenced in the 2012 IMC in only one location, and that location is not 507.9.


----------



## cda (Aug 3, 2015)

rgrace said:
			
		

> FYI, NFPA 96 is referenced in the 2012 IMC in only one location, and that location is not 507.9.


So how much clearance does IMC require?


----------



## rgrace (Aug 4, 2015)

18" with allowances for reductions per 308.6


----------



## cda (Aug 4, 2015)

507.9 Clearances for Type I hood.

A Type I hood shall be installed with a clearance to combustibles of not less than 18 inches (457 mm).

Exception: Clearance shall not be required from gypsum wallboard or 1/2-inch (12.7 mm) or thicker cementitious wallboard attached to noncombustible structures provided that a smooth, cleanable, nonabsorbent and noncombustible material is installed between the hood and the gypsum or cementitious wallboard over an area extending not less than 18 inches (457 mm) in all directions from the hood.


----------



## cda (Aug 4, 2015)

I guess I do not see to many vent a hoods attached directly to wood.


----------



## rgrace (Aug 4, 2015)

Unfortunately, I've seen too many. Designer didn't catch them, plan reviewer didn't catch them, contractor didn't catch them, but the inspector did. That was when I was first introduced to the hood "that has been tested for reduced clearances to combustibles." Needless to say, nobody was happy with my research results.


----------

