• 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

Your Opinion vs What the Code Reads / Intent

I have seen, prior to that sentence getting added to 507.1 a type I hood in a restaurant remodel repurposed as a type II. The new duct was light gage slip and drive appropriate for a type II. I think that sentence was added in 2009 IMC.
 
klarenbeek said:
Unlike the wall that shows up on the jobsite as unassembled studs and drywall, The problem here is it is already called a type I by the manufacturer and UL before the plans were even drawn. Then 507.1 says if a type I hood is installed the entire system has to meet type I requirements.
As far as voiding the listing, as soon as light gage duct or any other component does not meet the requirements of a Type I hood system it can't be used as a type I hood. Does that void the listing of the hood?
Click to expand...
So if I buy a used type 1 hood and put it over my dishwasher, It can't qualify as Type 2? The IMC does not require a hood to be listed and labelled...


301.7 Listed and labeled. Appliances regulated by this code
shall be listed and labeled for the application in which they
are installed and used, unless otherwise approved in accordance
with Section 105.
 
Last edited:
cda said:
if type II hood is all that is required

Than only needs to meet Type II requirements
Click to expand...
steveray said:
So if I buy a used type 1 hood and put it over my dishwasher, It can't qualify as Type 2? The IMC does not require a hood to be listed and labelled...
Click to expand...

The code quoted above says specifically that if a Type I hood is installed then all the other components have to meet the requirements for Type I. So, no you can't buy a used Type I and install it as a Type II. I would imagine the reason for this code language is that many of those other Type I components are hidden and someone, a kitchen equipment sales person, a future owner, a future renovator, could interpret the presence of a Type I hood as meaning that it actually is a Type I hood installation. I would also imagine that a BO might accept as equivalent the installation of a Type I in a Type II installation if the hood was marked as Type II or the Type I labels were removed.
 
Not exactly....

Where any cooking
appliance under a single hood requires a Type I hood, a
Type I hood shall be installed. Where a Type II hood is
required, a Type I or Type II hood shall be installed. Where a
Type I hood is installed, the installation of the entire system,
including the hood, ducts, exhaust equipment and makeup air
system shall comply with the requirements of Sections 506,
507, 508 and 509.

The intent is when it is required to be type 1....it is all type 1....If it is an unlisted/ unlabeled hood (as allowed), how do you know.....?
 
This is like the old guard argument.

Patio/deck, under 30" from grade, someone decides to be safe, or make it pretty, adds a system, that kinda looks like a guard, but doesn't meet the requirements.

Not required, stick to what is required for the application.

I have an office in my house, with no windows. For real. Without furniture, it looks like a sleeping room, has a closet (w/shelves), but no smoke detector. Should requirements for a sleeping room been applied? I think not.

JMHO
 
I can buy into an old unlisted type I hood because then there is nothing specifically calling it a type I hood. If it is listed and labeled as a type I hood that's a different matter. The code doesn't say where a type I hood is required, it says "where a type I hood is installed, the installation of the entire system, including the hood, ducts, exhaust equipment and makeup air system shall comply with the requirements of Sections 506, 507, 508 and 509."

If a type I isn't required and they don't want to spend the money on a full type I system, take out the listed type I hood and put in a type II. A good tinner can make one pretty quick, its just a big box. I've done it in under an hour, even in the days before we had a plasma table to cut everything out for you. Probably for less cost than they could turn around and sell the type I they have on eBay.
 
HOOD. An air intake device used to capture by entrapment, impingement, adhesion or similar means, grease, moisture, heat and similar contaminants before they enter a duct system.

Type I. A kitchen hood for collecting and removing grease vapors and smoke. Such hoods are equipped with a fire suppression system.

Type II. A general kitchen hood for collecting and removing steam, vapor, heat, odors and products of combustion.
 
If what is provided is in excess of what the code requires the building department is not concerned.
 
mtlogcabin said:
I have a little bit of latitude from the state with regards to your question
Montana Administrative rule
24.301.146 (29) The building official may waive minor building code violations that do not constitute an imminent threat to property or to the health, safety, or welfare of any person.

The key IMHO, is the violation minor and is it imminent.

imminent​

(ˈɪmɪnənt)
adj
1. liable to happen soon; impending
Click to expand...
Like Mtlogcabin says about Montana, Oregon has adopted a similar provision that allows more discretionary powers and flexibility to Building officials.
 
Here's the whole section, minus the exceptions for what listed hoods do not have to meet and recirculating systems:

507.1 General. Commercial kitchen exhaust hoods shall
comply with the requirements of this section. Hoods shall be
Type I or II and shall be designed to capture and confine
cooking vapors and residues. A Type I or Type II hood shall
be installed at or above appliances in accordance with Sections
507.2 and 507.3. Where any cooking appliance under a
single hood requires a Type I hood, a Type I hood shall be
installed. Where a Type II hood is required, a Type I or Type
II hood shall be installed. Where a Type I hood is installed,
the installation of the entire system, including the hood,
ducts, exhaust equipment and makeup air system shall comply
with the requirements of Sections 506, 507, 508 and 509.

There is nothing saying that a hood over an appliance that only requires a type II hood is designated as a type II hood, it says the appliance can be under either a type I or a type II.
I know the commentary is not code, but it is a tool to be used to help in interpreting the code. Here's what the commentary says regarding this: "If such type I hood is connected to duct suitable for only type II hood systems, a fire hazard could result. Building owners and tenants could think they have a type I hood system when viewing the hood, not realizing that the hood system is actually a mismatch of a type I hood with ductwork that is not compatible with a type I hood.... If the type I hood was later used with appliances requiring type I hoods, a severe fire hazard would result, unknown to the building owner or tenants. The code intends to prohibit the installation of a system that is misleading as to its capabilities, application , and purpose."
 
Mark K said:
If what is provided is in excess of what the code requires the building department is not concerned.
Click to expand...
This goes back to the main question of 101.3, the intent of the code. A completely different example, but I want to heat my garage, which is in excess of what minimum code requires. Is my garage heater subject to code requirements?

BTW this is a great discussion, and thanks for the input from all!
 
klarenbeek said:
Here's the whole section, minus the exceptions for what listed hoods do not have to meet and recirculating systems:

507.1 General. Commercial kitchen exhaust hoods shall
comply with the requirements of this section. Hoods shall be
Type I or II and shall be designed to capture and confine
cooking vapors and residues. A Type I or Type II hood shall
be installed at or above appliances in accordance with Sections
507.2 and 507.3. Where any cooking appliance under a
single hood requires a Type I hood, a Type I hood shall be
installed. Where a Type II hood is required, a Type I or Type
II hood shall be installed. Where a Type I hood is installed,
the installation of the entire system, including the hood,
ducts, exhaust equipment and makeup air system shall comply
with the requirements of Sections 506, 507, 508 and 509.

There is nothing saying that a hood over an appliance that only requires a type II hood is designated as a type II hood, it says the appliance can be under either a type I or a type II.
I know the commentary is not code, but it is a tool to be used to help in interpreting the code. Here's what the commentary says regarding this: "If such type I hood is connected to duct suitable for only type II hood systems, a fire hazard could result. Building owners and tenants could think they have a type I hood system when viewing the hood, not realizing that the hood system is actually a mismatch of a type I hood with ductwork that is not compatible with a type I hood.... If the type I hood was later used with appliances requiring type I hoods, a severe fire hazard would result, unknown to the building owner or tenants. The code intends to prohibit the installation of a system that is misleading as to its capabilities, application , and purpose."
Click to expand...

If installed as type II and used as that

Than a year later they decide to deep fat fry,,, the entire set up would require changes.
 
I fear that what is perceived as the intent of the code is being used by some to impose there personal preferences.

Asking if a garage heater is subject to the code suggests that one is not familiar with the code. If you install something that something must be compatible with the laws. But that doesn't mean that the heater must be able to maintain a given temperature.

Using the proposed logic would suggest that if I used a floor joist that had a greater capacity than required that I would have to design all of the columns and footings for this higher load. If this is your intent then I suggest that essentially all existing buildings were not consistent with the "intent" and that they should be all condemned.

Look at how lawyers and the courts interpret the meaning of the code. You do not enforce the intent. You enforce the written law. You use the intent to help interpret the code when there is a real, not contrived, ambiguity.
 
Mark K said:
I fear that what is perceived as the intent of the code is being used by some to impose there personal preferences.

Asking if a garage heater is subject to the code suggests that one is not familiar with the code. If you install something that something must be compatible with the laws. But that doesn't mean that the heater must be able to maintain a given temperature.

Using the proposed logic would suggest that if I used a floor joist that had a greater capacity than required that I would have to design all of the columns and footings for this higher load. If this is your intent then I suggest that essentially all existing buildings were not consistent with the "intent" and that they should be all condemned.

Look at how lawyers and the courts interpret the meaning of the code. You do not enforce the intent. You enforce the written law. You use the intent to help interpret the code when there is a real, not contrived, ambiguity.
Click to expand...
I was playing a bit of devil's advocate with the garage heater scenario, but wasn't even considering ability to maintain a certain temperature. I was talking about the installation itself. There are those that would try to take the interpretation of "not required" that far.

Back to the hood scenario, it IS written law that if a type I hood is installed (not required) the entire system must comply with type I requirements, so are those who allow lesser duct, etc. going with their own personal preferences and not the code as written?
 
klarenbeek said:
I was playing a bit of devil's advocate with the garage heater scenario, but wasn't even considering ability to maintain a certain temperature. I was talking about the installation itself. There are those that would try to take the interpretation of "not required" that far.

Back to the hood scenario, it IS written law that if a type I hood is installed (not required) the entire system must comply with type I requirements, so are those who allow lesser duct, etc. going with their own personal preferences and not the code as written?
Click to expand...

Ok let’s play you make the call

New building
You do a final

Find a one hour rated door with label,,, in a non rated frame,,, in a non rated wall,,, with no closing device

Do you make them remove the rated door

Do you make them install a rated frame

Do you make them installs closing device

Do you make them remove the UL label

Do you
 
I like the Mark and cda examples....If there is no ANSUL, it is not type 1, So there is no mistaking that IMO....If I had to, I would remove the label (that said TYPE 1) and then there could be no argument...
 
Not quite as familiar with the IBC as the IMC. Is there anything in the IBC regarding the door similar to this from the IMC regarding hoods?

Where a Type I hood is installed,
the installation of the entire system, including the hood,
ducts, exhaust equipment and makeup air system shall comply
with the requirements of Sections 506, 507, 508 and 509.

If there isn't, the door can stay as is. In one of my previous posts I said I did run into mismatched hood and duct before that was added to the IMC, and it passed because the above statement was not in code at the time.
 
The ANSUL system is driven by the appliances under the hood, not the hood itself (IMC 509). The hood, duct, ANSUL, fan, and makeup air are each separate components that make up a Type I system. How the hood itself is built/listed is what determines what type of hood it is.
 
509.1 Where required. Commercial cooking appliances required by Section 507.2 to have a Type I hood shall be provided with an approved automatic fire suppression system complying with the International Building Code and the International Fire Code.

So are you saying you can install a Type 1 hood without suppression?...

Where a Type I hood is installed, the installation of the entire system, including the hood, ducts, exhaust equipment and makeup air system shall comply
with the requirements of Sections 506, 507, 508 and 509.

This is probably getting to the point where it should be its own thread.....
 
steveray said:
509.1 Where required. Commercial cooking appliances required by Section 507.2 to have a Type I hood shall be provided with an approved automatic fire suppression system complying with the International Building Code and the International Fire Code.

So are you saying you can install a Type 1 hood without suppression?...

Where a Type I hood is installed, the installation of the entire system, including the hood, ducts, exhaust equipment and makeup air system shall comply
with the requirements of Sections 506, 507, 508 and 509.

This is probably getting to the point where it should be its own thread.....
Click to expand...


I think it is more, you make the call.

For your ahj.

End of thread time.
 
Agreed,

End of thread time.

Parting shot.

I would still call them townhouses, IRC, and walk away. No sprinkler. If the State law requires a RDP at that point, it would probably be cheaper than the sprinklers. Because I am sure you deleted P2904, so now you are in a NFPA designed system.

BTW, we exempted one and two-family dwellings from our sprinkler requirements, retaining P2904 because we require townhouses to be sprinklered.
 
1627043842524.png
Going back to the original discussion my state did not adopt chapter 1 and replaced it with nothing about rendering interpretations except for when it comes to a Board of Appeals. I'm not sure if this makes my job as an inspector easier or harder. But I think only an appeals board can render interpretations, legally speaking in PA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top