• 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

Fryer to open flame appliance clearnace

F

fireguy

Gold Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
574
I stopped at one of our resturant accounts this week. An insurance inspector was in and noted "The deep fat fryer and other cook tops are next to each other with no protective barriers in between. It is recommended that any cook tops be spaced at least 16 inches from deep fryers or that there be an 8 inch protective barrier/baffle between them to prevent possible grease fires."

There is a 36 inch grille between the fryers and open top applinces. But, I cannot find the code section in the Mechanical Code book. I know it is there, just cannot find it. Can someone help?

He also got written up for extingusiher placement. All extinguishers are mounted at the correct height and have signs above them. All the FX are behind the bar or in the kitchen. I do not like to place extinguishsers accessable to the patrons. I want all possible impaired patrons out side so they can be entertianed by the fire and the fire departments.
 
* * * *

fireguy,

From Section 304 [ `06 IMC ]: - SECTION 304 - INSTALLATION:
304.1 General:
Equipment and appliances shall be installed as required by the terms of their approval,
in accordance with the conditions of the listing, the manufacturer’s installation
instructions and this code........Manufacturer’s installation instructions shall be available
on the job site at the time of inspection.

From Section 917 [ `06 IMC ]: - SECTION 917 - COOKING APPLIANCES:
917.1 Cooking appliances:
Cooking appliances that are designed for permanent installation, including ranges,
ovens, stoves, broilers, grills, fryers, griddles and barbecues, shall be listed, labeled
and installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions.
Oil-burning stoves shall be tested in accordance with UL 896........ Solid fuel-fired
ovens shall be tested in accordance with UL 2162.

Are you [ possibly ] referring to the "Clearance Reduction Methods - Table 308.6" ?

"It is recommended that any cook tops be spaced at least 16 inchesfrom deep fryers or that there be an 8 inch protective barrier/baffle between them to prevent possible grease fires."
Click to expand...
You're thinking that this "recommendation" is out of the IMC ?

* * * *
 
2008 edition of NFPA 96 section 12.1.2.4 All deep-fat fryers shall be installed with at least a 16 inch space between the fryer and surface flames from adjacent cooking equipment.

12.1.2.5 Where a steel or tempered glass baffle plate is intalled at a minimum 8 inch height betwwent the fryer and surface flames ot the adjacent appliance, the requirement for a 16 inch space shall not apply.
 
But does IFC allow you to reference other standards??

And do manufactures/ installers have to meet 96????
 
permitguy said:
FWIW - NFPA 96 is not a referenced standard in either the IFC or the IMC.
Click to expand...
Correct however I do insurance inspections and NFPA 96 is what we use as quoted by John. Everything we put on the field reports are just recommendations, it is up to the reviewer to determine if it is required or they just adjust the premium in accordance with the risks we find in the field.

Fireguy, most of the time I find the fryer is more than 8 inches below the adjacent surface flame and the edge of the appliance acts as the baffle.
 
I knew that was in NFPA 96, butI was sure it was in the IMC also. I will send a copy of 96 to the insurance agent. They have no idea there are any codes.

Thanks for hte help, I would appreciate it if this help was kept between us. I don't want any of my local inspectors to find I have gaps in my knowledge.
 
also indirectly referenced by,,, IFC,,,, references nfpa 17a,,,, and,,,,, nfpa 17a references nfpa 96!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Two or three years , I got a phone call from a member of the Oregon Fire Code Comittee. He wanted to know if there were any NFPA codes dealing with kitchen exhaust systems. I refered him to NFPA 96. When the 2010 Oregon Fire Code came out , 609.3 deals with maintancence and service of exhaust systems. I was also asked if there were any national org for hood cleaners. I told him about the International Exaust Cleaning Association. I called Jack Grace of Western Commercial Services in Las Vegas, a board member of IKECA. Jack got a meeting set up w/IKECA and the FM. When the 2010 Oregon Fire Code became effective in July of 2010, Section 609 was added, concerning exhaust system and suppression systems. Now, all we need is enforcement.
 
don't worry about "someone finding gaps in your scope of knowledge", how are you going to learn? do they know it all? i doubt it, and if they do, (you in trouble) 'cause nobody knows it all! who and where did they come by this wealth of knowledge? someone either passed it on to them of they found it somewhere. we are not born with this information and knowledge, we learn it. and, it's difficult to say the least to keep 4 or 5 code books worth of information and references at the tip of your memory. or, maqbe i'm the only one who doesn't have a photographic memory
 
NFPA 96 is referenced in the 2012 IMC.
Click to expand...
Thanks! Just checked the reference, and it seems NFPA 96 is only applicable in the IMC when used to except out a Type I or II hood for down-draft exhaust systems (Section 507.2, exception).

If that's the case, the clearances referenced above still wouldn't be enforcable. Correct?

I'm not saying the clearances are a bad idea, I just want it to be understood that they aren't enforceable by an AHJ without an amendment.
 
It is also enforeced in the areas in which I work, even though Oregon is an ICC state. If the inspector does not mention it, I mention it. I explain the reasons, which is life safety and the inspectors have always agreed.
 
permitguy said:
Thanks! Just checked the reference, and it seems NFPA 96 is only applicable in the IMC when used to except out a Type I or II hood for down-draft exhaust systems (Section 507.2, exception).If that's the case, the clearances referenced above still wouldn't be enforcable. Correct?

I'm not saying the clearances are a bad idea, I just want it to be understood that they aren't enforceable by an AHJ without an amendment.
Click to expand...
I think that's up the AHJ. I think if the IMC is silent on the matter, then the AHJ has the right to make reference to other codes which may have direction on the matter, perhaps as an alternative method per 105.2.
 
Codegeek said:
I think that's up the AHJ. I think if the IMC is silent on the matter, then the AHJ has the right to make reference to other codes which may have direction on the matter, perhaps as an alternative method per 105.2.
Click to expand...
As an AHJ we can not enforce codes we have not adopted. Once you start down that path you take a step closer to becoming little more than the bully that brudgers thinks most of us may be.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out life safety issues and hoping that people will comply for their own good, however holding up the project or failing an inspection because you believe that you can enforce a reference that you have not made legal; well that’s simply wrong and bordering on malfeasance.
 
Cool. Still seems like an amendment would be much easier to avoid a 102.8 conflict. If an AHJ lets a single, specific reference bring the whole standard into play, things would get messy awfully fast.

If lack of clearance is a documented problem, I wonder why clearances aren't either in the body of the IMC or specifically referenced out to NFPA 96?
 
gbhammer said:
As an AHJ we can not enforce codes we have not adopted. Once you start down that path you take a step closer to becoming little more than the bully that brudgers thinks most of us may be.There is nothing wrong with pointing out life safety issues and hoping that people will comply for their own good, however holding up the project or failing an inspection because you believe that you can enforce a reference that you have not made legal; well that’s simply wrong and bordering on malfeasance.
Click to expand...
I never said an AHJ had to enforce a code it hadn't adopted. I simply suggested that refering to the standard could be deemed an alternate method since the standard already has a precedence with a reference through the code. It's an AHJ's decision to make.
 
There is a 36 inch grille between the fryers and open top applinces.
Click to expand...
From what you described there is no violation of NFPA 96 because surface flames are over 36" from the fryer.

Codegeek

My understanding is 105.2 is for the BO to have the latitude to accept another document, test or product not addressed in the code. It is not there for a BO to use to require something not specifically addressed within the codes.

Most commercial cooking equipment manufactures reference NFPA 96 in their installation instructions. In the case of fryers and their location to open surface flames that is where I would look and use the installation instructions as the reference to NFPA 96.
 
mtlogcabin said:
CodegeekMy understanding is 105.2 is for the BO to have the latitude to accept another document, test or product not addressed in the code. It is not there for a BO to use to require something not specifically addressed within the codes.
Click to expand...
That was not my point. My point was that if a standard has direction on how to more clearly help a CO in determining if something is compliant, then use it. I'm not suggesting that a CO use a document to enforce just to get their rocks off. It's those that do that give the rest of the CO's a terrible reputation.
 
Do not know how it works in the international community,

But the extinguishing company installers around here do look at fryer clearance and certify the system has it
 
Fireguy, most of the time I find the fryer is more than 8 inches below the adjacent surface flame and the edge of the appliance acts as the baffle.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That one got me wondering, so I checked NFPA 96 (2011) Section 12.1.2.5.1 which states: "If the fryer and the surface flames are at different horizontal planes, the minimum height of 203mm (8 in.) shall be measured from the higher of the two." (underscore mine)

I believe you would still need a a min. 8" baffle plate if the fryer is below 8" from the cooktop
 
I believe you would still need a a min. 8" baffle plate if the fryer is below 8" from the cooktop
Click to expand...
Just to clarify

If the fryer is 6" below the surface flame then a minimum 2" plate would be needed to meet the 8" requirement.

Correct

Or do you think an 8" plate would still be required?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top