• 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

Tell me what you think....

gaps in the filters?

proper filters??

are the appliances properly protected?

is the plenum area proerly protected??

maybe a question of what shut down, when the system dumps

hood supported properly??
 
Well the hood itself was issued a compliance certificate in 94. They are upgrading system to ul300. The question really becomes is your thoughts on the doorway to the adjoining space underneath the hood.
 
I don't there that having an oversized hood that you may or may not be walking under is a violation.
 
When the guy walking next to the range catches fire smoke and grease could be produced. Type I hood is appropriate.

Eww - sorry for that.

I guess the code does not prohibit a hood from covering more than it needs to. From a practical standpoint, traffic past the range will upset the plume and will result in loss of capture. Also, more CFM is being exhausted than needs to be.
 
LMOA Dr. J. I know someone that thinks exactly like that. We call them ARCO's in Oregon. (Anal Retentive Code Officials)

I don't see a violation, just a wasted design.
 
Marshall Chris,

Since this is food service establishment, check with your local Health Dept. on their requirements.

Theirs may be more stringent than the building dept. Also, is that a Type "K" portable fire

extinguisher?

.
 
That is a K class FX, sold by Buckeye, made by Amerex. I do not like the location, too close to the range. I do not see a sign as per NFPA 10-2010 Section 5.5.5.3 The exhaust air movement would be comprimised by the doorway, as would intake air. But if this was inspected in 1994, it probably met code. Lots has been learned about air movement in the last 16 years. The filters are crap, but probably meet the UL standard. I do not think ICC references a filter standard. Aluminum filters do not last long and do not hold up to the intense temperatures found in hood fires. There should be a panel to close the gap between the filters. I would remove all the filters not over cooking appliances and install metal panels. Not all of hte filters are installed properly. Note how some filters are in the grease tray, obstructing hte movement of grease to the collection can. Do the ceiling tiles meet code for the fire resitance? The gap between the top of hood and tile looks ok. The junction between the hoods needs to be checked to insure a liqued tight weld. I cannot tell the brand of fire system from the nozzles, but the nozzle over the range appears to meet current mfg requirements. But, if it is an Ansul system, there was a change in regulators between pre-UL300 and current UL300. Another picture of the of the hood, duct, make-up air outlet, exhaust fan, the fire suppression system tank and control panel would help.

Is it OK to print the picture so my guys can argue the merits of this install? I would like to know how many problems they find.
 
Well, there are a host of several violations at the site. I don't like where the wet chem is either. Also, it was just hydrostatically tested and has no verification of service collar ring. The LPR nozzles over the range are not proper and the usual extenion cords.

What happened with regards to this design is this is a new tenant and doesn't need the side hood that's there but doesn't want to upgrade it if he doesn't have to.

Fireguy, have at it with the pictures. I have pictures of other violations on my phone I can send you.
 
Marshal Chris said:
Well, there are a host of several violations at the site. I don't like where the wet chem is either. Also, it was just hydrostatically tested and has no verification of service collar ring. The LPR nozzles over the range are not proper and the usual extenion cords.What happened with regards to this design is this is a new tenant and doesn't need the side hood that's there but doesn't want to upgrade it if he doesn't have to.

Fireguy, have at it with the pictures. I have pictures of other violations on my phone I can send you.
Click to expand...
Pictures like that are good, it makes all of us think and learn. Can you post the pictures here, so we can all shake our heads at what occurs in the real world? The comments of others are what make this activity a learning experience.
 
~ ~ ~ ~

Marshall Chris asked:

Now, would you consider that area part of the means of egress which requires 7 foot ceiling clearance?
Click to expand...
In looking at Section 3403.1 - EXISTING STRUCTURES [ `06 IBC ], I don't believe that you can ' require 'the 7 ft. clearance.

From Section 3403.1 - ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS OR REPAIRS. "Existing buildings or structures.

"Additions or alterations to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of the

code for new construction........Additions or alterations shall not be made to an existing building

or structure that will cause the existing building or structure to be in violation of any provisions

of this code......An existing building plus additions shall comply with the height and area provisions

of Chapter 5........Portions of the structure not altered and not affected by the alteration are not

required to comply with the code requirements for a new structure."

~ ~ ~ ~
 
Well, this was an alteration without a permit. That door wasn't original and that other space used to be another tenant space and was part of the "altered" area.
 
= = = =

Then it sounds like it is time to move the exhaust hood and provide

the required head clearance. :-o



= = = =
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top