I am not sure
I have not seen a report before, and no one has ever asked me to use the exception
-
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
pizza ovens, need assistance, type 1 or type 2
- Thread starter codeworks
- Start date
I am not sure
I have not seen a report before, and no one has ever asked me to use the exception
ICE
Oh Well
Could be New York City....I don’t know why people live there either.
ICE
Oh Well
You might get different answers from one jurisdiction to the next. The one you are dealing with has been down this road....more than once. No matter what you find in the rest of the world it’s an easy question to ask.. I bet that the answer is on the tip of her tongue. Shirley call Carrollton.
Last edited:
ICE
Oh Well
rgrace
Sawhorse
Wow, sometimes you folk split off in so many different paths it's hard to follow. The following is based on the 2015 IMC - Electric pizza oven (enclosed), Type II hood unless heat and moisture loads can be incorporated into HVAC system per Section 507.3. Gas pizza oven (enclosed), Type II hood (produces products of combustion per Section 507.3). Electric or gas pizza oven (conveyor), Type I hood (see mtlogcabin post referencing 2012 IMC - 2015 hasn't changed). Convection oven (enclosed) (tested through UL Category KNLZ which BTW uses pizzas to conduct the test), no hood required based on Section 507.2 Exception (that was for you cda). These are generally small, countertop installed cooking appliances. Solid fuel fired pizza oven (required to be open to operate), Type I hood per Section 507.2. I think that covers all of the different ways to cook pizza.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Existing chain pizza oven under a Type II hood. Old chain oven removed and new chain oven installed.
Do you make them update the entire hood?
Just install a suppression system?
Just allow the change out and require nothing?
This just came into our office today and there are different opinion on how to handle it.
It will never meet the exception part so that is out.
Do you make them update the entire hood?
Just install a suppression system?
Just allow the change out and require nothing?
This just came into our office today and there are different opinion on how to handle it.
It will never meet the exception part so that is out.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Forgot to mention this is a national chain warehouse store that does about 250 pizzas per day through this oven.
rgrace
Sawhorse
Tough call. In my jurisdiction, like-for-like changes are permitted without bringing up to current code requirements provided the change does not increase the hazard. If this can be considered an upgrade rather than a like-for-like, that can be considered a hazard increase. If the cooking appliance has the ability to cook more pizzas than the previous cooking appliance, that can be considered a hazard increase. Would prefer to see a Type I hood, but would need to provide solid, code justification for requiring such.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Would you allow them to install a dry niche luminaire in a pool because the pool was existing? They want to install a piece of equipment, not in accordance with it's listing imo....
rgrace
Sawhorse
Without doing research, was there a time when a dry niche luminaire was permitted by the code? There have been a lot of changes made to the hood requirements of the IMC, and there are installations out there that do not meet current code requirements. If a cooking appliance has met its life expectancy and needs to be replaced, is this just cause to require that all other aspects associated with this cooking appliance be brought up to current code requirements if the hazard associated with a like-for-like replacement is not increased? It wasn't until the 2003 IMC that definitions of cooking appliance "duty" was introduced and a distinction was made between a conveyor oven (light duty) and a conveyor pizza oven (medium duty), and not until the 2009 IMC that the light-duty conveyor oven was changed to "countertop conveyorized baking/finishing" oven. IMO, replacing a piece of equipment like-for-like because it no longer functions correctly doesn't automatically justify the retrofit of other systems to meet current code requirements. Increased hazards must first be evaluated and justification provided for retrofit enforcement.
I don't understand the second statement, please clarify ..... the listing doesn't dictate hood requirements, and I didn't see reference in this thread that the proposed cooking appliance would be installed in such a way that it would not conform to the listing ........ or was that referencing the dry niche luminaire?
