# UL 300 hood systems



## mtlogcabin (Dec 10, 2009)

Our jurisdiction has a few commercial cooking establishments where the hood suppression system does not meet IFC 904.11. Is there a code requirement to update these systems?

We use 2006 IFC only so please do not comment on NFPA 101

IFC 901.4 Installation.

Fire protection systems shall be maintained in accordance with the original installation standards for that system. Required systems shall be extended, altered, or augmented as necessary to maintain and continue protection whenever the building is altered, remodeled or added to. Alterations to fire protection systems shall be done in accordance with applicable standards.

IFC [M] 609.1 General.

Commercial kitchen exhaust hoods shall comply with the requirements of the International Mechanical Code.

IMC 2006

102.2 Existing installations.

Except as otherwise provided for in this chapter, a provision in this code shall not require the removal, alteration or abandonment of, nor prevent the continued utilization and maintenance of, a mechanical system lawfully in existence at the time of the adoption of this code.

102.3 Maintenance.

Mechanical systems, both existing and new, and parts thereof shall be maintained in proper operating condition in accordance with the original design and in a safe and sanitary condition. Devices or safeguards which are required by this code shall be maintained in compliance with the code edition under which they were installed. The owner or the owner’s designated agent shall be responsible for maintenance of mechanical systems. To determine compliance with this provision, the code official shall have the authority to require a mechanical system to be reinspected.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Dec 10, 2009)

Re: UL 300 hood systems

Most places I've seen, they allow the systems to stay in place until either a part needs replacement or the system discharges.  At which time, the existing system needs to be brought up to the new standards.


----------



## cda (Dec 10, 2009)

Re: UL 300 hood systems

our state also regulates fixed pipe on top of us , and they required them to meet ul 300

Yea if you do not have anything in place to require the change out, may be alittle hard

Either under distinct hazard, or put a something in place saying after this date they shal be ul 300


----------



## Builder Bob (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: UL 300 hood systems

State agency mandates or provided policy for replacement/ updating hoods. Don't think any of them exist (legally) anymore.... Still have a few areas in our state where annual fire inspections aren't done(period)


----------



## FM William Burns (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: UL 300 hood systems

Doesn’t the fact that in the event changes in cooking media used dictate the ability of the installation to be listed?  Therefore, a compliantly installed NFPA 17 system being utilized for a cooking media that the system is not listed for would allow for a jurisdictional requirement to have the system protecting the hazard meet the listing requirements of 904.11:



> Preengineered automatic dry- and wet-chemical extinguishing systems shall be tested in accordance with UL 300 and listed and labeled for the intended application. *Other types of automatic fire-extinguishing systems shall be listed and labeled for specific use as protection for commercial cooking operations.* The system shall be installed in accordance with this code, *its listing* and the manufacturer’s installation instructions.


 regardless of retroactivity clauses?  If the protection means is not listed for the hazard anymore is it ICC’s intent to just allow a hazardous condition to remain?

Maybe that’s why some insurance carriers require the upgrade if an affected facility wants to remain covered.  I also know of Health Departments who use licensing regulations to get upgrades done in these types of situations since the changes in cooking media does not meet the listing of the installed system.

We use the code that was required to not be referenced so it’s not an issue for us since the referenced standard that the code uses addresses changes in cooking media for existing installations.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: UL 300 hood systems

And if the cooking media has not changed (animal fats still used like grandma's thats why it taste better) then a UL 300 sytem is not required correct? Just trying to understand :?


----------



## FM William Burns (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: UL 300 hood systems

I believe so, but could be mistaken!

I really don't know why the "cooking media" was not addressed/expanded further with better clarification in the IFC and maybe Gene can provide some greater insight.  If we were an IFC jurisdiction, I would most likely atempt the rationale used in my posting since in my opinion, if a cooking media has changed and the fire suppression system no longer meets the listing criteria for that cooking media, it's not listed anymore and therefore deficient....... unless they strictly cook with the tested and listed media.


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: UL 300 hood systems

From an insurance company point of view, if they changed from animal fat to veggie oil in the deep fat fryer then we will generate a" recommendation" to upgrade to a UL 300 compliant system. IF the underwriter for the account makes our "recommendation" a condition for renewing the account then perhaps it will get done. BUT the client can always find another insurance carrier that will not have the same requirement.

Never figure on the insurance company wanting the same thing you do. Way too many variables in the insurance world to make that happen.


----------



## Builder Bob (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: UL 300 hood systems



> And if the cooking media has not changed (animal fats still used like grandma's thats why it taste better) then a UL 300 sytem is not required correct? Just trying to understand


I believe that there is two parts to this problem -

1. The one that everybody is familiar with - the higher ignition temperature of veggie oil and the lack of interaction (soapification) betweeen the extinguishing agent and the new veggie oil.

2. - The newer fryers are better insulated, thus retain heat longer than the less energy efficent fryers of yesteryear - Thus, even if using fatty oils, could cause the heat to be retained longer and the oil could reflash when the soapification process quit or the soap blanket dissolved.

Not known to be true, but know that those were severral reasons used to require the change to mandate UL300 systems.


----------



## FM William Burns (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: UL 300 hood systems

The real potential could be as seen in this video which occurred a couple weeks ago in a neighboring City’s restaurant.  The fire allegedly began in the Kitchen (not my investigation) and the restaurant closed just hours before the fire was noticed.  Our department was there for six hours and the kitchen was located on the right central area of the building involved in the (video).  The fire took out two downtown buildings and damaged one other.


----------



## Marshal Chris (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: UL 300 hood systems

I don't know if your questions has been answered, but here in NY, the codes division put out a technical bulliten on this issue.  It can be found here.  I hope that helps.


----------



## JBI (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: UL 300 hood systems

Marshal Chris - Darn! you beat me to the punch. I just saved that to my hard drive a short while ago for posting...


----------



## cheyer (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: UL 300 hood systems

Per our 2007 California Fire Code (based on 2006 IFC).."all existing dry-chemical and wet chemical extinguishing systems shall complywith UL 300, no later than the second required servicing of the system following the effective date of this section"......

Now ask me how well compliance is coming along.......  :?


----------



## Marshal Chris (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: UL 300 hood systems

If it's anything like our office, it's going as well as either:

1) when an inspector picks it up in the field

or

2) an "anonymous" complaint is lodged to the office alleging a non-compliant system.


----------

