• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Domestic cooking appliances used in commercial buildings.

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