National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 Fax: 617-770-0700 www.nfpa.org MEMORANDUM To: From: NFPA Technical Committee on Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances Stacey Van Zandt, Project Administrator Date: December 7, 2012 Subject: NFPA 96 ROC TC FINAL Ballot Results (A2013) Revised According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot. 28 Members Eligible to Vote 3 Members did not Return a Ballot (Caraway, Lopes, and Reisman) 11 Members who voted Affirmative on All (1 with comment Conroy) 14 Members who voted on one or more Comments (Besal, Carr, Getz, Greenberg, Hiener, Leicht, Levin, Lombas, Munger, Murphy, Parikh, Pavlock, Ray, and Sloan) 0 Member who Abstained on one or more Comments The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each comment. There are two criteria necessary for each comment to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2 / 3 vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined. (1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote 2 = 10 + 1 = 11) (2) Example for Affirmative 2 / 3 : Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members and 1 member did not return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligble to vote 1 not returned 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = 11.22 = 12 ) As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
1 96-1 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 2.3.x (New) (Log # 21 ) 96-2 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 2.3.1 and B.1.2.2 (Log # 9 ) 96-3 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 2.3.3 (Log # 2 ) 96-4 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 3.3.38 Material, 4.8, A.3.3.38, and A.4.8.1.1 (Log # 10 ) Parikh, J. (1) delete * from 3.3.38.2, since A.3.3.38.2 is not included in the Committee Action, and it is not needed, (2) include 4.8 Materials, which is missing, and (3) in 4.8.1.2 and 4.8.2.5, change the word Code to standard, as it is the correct term. 96-5 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 3.3.38.2 Limited Combustible (Material (Log # 11 )
2 96-6 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 3.3.41 Qualified (Log # 12 ) 96-7 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 4.2.3 (Log # 8 ) 96-8 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 24 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 3 4.2.3.3 (Log # 18 ) Sloan, D. I am voting negative on this Comment based on my agreement with the proposed language and Substantiation for Proposal 96-17 Log#10. The Proposal substantiation stated In actuality "noncombustible materials or assemblies of noncombustible materials" were not intended to be used to reduce clearances unless they too were so listed. A sheet of lightweight steel, although noncombustible, may not adequately protect a combustible wall when the steel is adhered directly onto it. The Committee originally agreed with this substantiation and Accepted the proposal such that noncombustible materials or assembly of noncombustible materials were required to be listed for the purpose of reducing clearance reducing clearance. However, during this ROC, the wording was changed to permit any or all noncombustible materials or assembly of noncombustible materials. While I continue to be in favor of keeping the traditional widely used methods (metal lath and plaster, ceramic tile, and quarry tile), I believe that that not all noncombustible materials or assembly of noncombustible materials would ensure zero clearance to limited combustibles. 96-9 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 6.1.3, 6.2.3.1, and 6.2.3.2 (Log # 1 )
3 96-10 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 6.1.3.1 (Log # 33 ) 96-11 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 24 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 3 6.2.3.1 (Log # 5 ) Ray, S. Voting negative. Having "steel" in the language sets the tone for what is acceptable, while not requiring it be constructed of steel. Log #32 (96-12) is better in my opinion as it provides language for "or equivalent" to allow other materials proven to be as robust as steel. This proposal in comparison could result in sub-par filter construction down the road. 96-12 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 21 : 4 Abstain: 0 : 3 6.2.3.1 (Log # 32 ) Besal, B. The committee statement on 96-11 (log # 5) does not address any of the concerns cited by the submitter. I remain with the same concerns as the submitter concerning disposable grease filters. Referring the submitter to Log 5 does not satisfy the very valid questions asked in the comment substantiation by the comment submitter. Assisting the acceptance of products with unproven track records, through the modification of this standard, decreases fire safety and should be completely avoided. Getz, R. I feel aluminum filters should not be used. They must be steel or equal. Murphy, J. Adding a porous wool type filter in front of a listed baffle filter will negatively affect air flow. The wool type filters when mounted on a listed baffle filter do not have a method to drain grease to a cup. There is no history to show that the performance of fire suppression systems is not negatively affected. Paragraph 6.2.3.1 should be reinstated. Ray, S. Voting negative. I believe this proposal (rejected by TC) is better than what was accepted in 96-11(Log #5) and should be used in the next edition as opposed to the language proposed in 96-11 (Log #5). 96-13 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 7.1.4 (Log # 13 )
4 96-14 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 7.1.4 (Log # 15 ) 96-15 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 7.1.4 (Log # 30 ) 96-16 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 7.1.4 and A.7.1.4.2 (Log # 26 ) Sloan, D. Please note that UL1978, Grease Ducts does not currently contain specific requirements for listing factory built grease ducts for lesser slopes than required by Code. However, UL expects to act on proposals shortly for updating UL1978 to address slope. 96-17 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 24 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 3 7.5.2.1.2 (New) (Log # 17 )
5 Ray, S. Strongly oppose this rejection and urge the TC to strike all new language and revert back to the 2011 version for the following reasons: 1.) Factory-built grease ducts will not have a joint which is welded (as indicated in new text). 2.) Factory-built duct joints can be tested but factory welds are concealed by an outer casing and/or insulation. Therefore, to comply with new language accepted by the TC the duct shall be disassembled in the field for inspection. Such action voids the listing (and warranty) of the duct and the grease duct no longer complies with NFPA 96! Which will drive up cost and provide a less safe (or unsafe) exhaust system! 3.) Chapter 5 of the IMC addresses this issue by specifying a "light test" and excluding Factory-built duct welds from the test. Recent proposed language to include alternative test methods such as water or air pressure tests were rejected by the ICC Committee last summer and then again most recently at the Final IMC Hearings in Portland, OR. Strongly Urge the TC to vote negative on this section provided it then reverts back to the 2011 language. If corrections are needed, let's get it right at the next cycle, while avoiding confusion for the AHJ's meantime. 96-18 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 7.5.2.1.2 and A.7.5.2.1.2 (Log # 19 ) 96-19 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 23 : 2 Abstain: 0 : 3 8.2.3.1 and A.8.2.3.1 (Log # 27 ) Besal, B. The requirement to activate the exhaust fan places financial burden on end users when low heat appliances (such as induction cookers and some electric appliances) are used. Complicated and expensive interlock systems will be required as the final (accepted) wording of 8.2.3.3 will now require as published. Parikh, J. 8.2.3.3 (new) should not be included, since: (1) 8.2.3.1 basically states the same requirement, (2) if such requirement was to be included, it should be a subsection of 8.2.3.1, and not a new 8.2.3.3, and (3) 8.2.3.3 (existing 8.2.3.2 in the current standard) already exists. 96-20 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 10.2.3.1 (Log # 20 ) Parikh, J. Make the editorial changes in 10.2.3.1 (revised by Committee Action in, 96-22 (Log # 28) to delete and and wet chemical (which appears twice) so it reads: In existing dry or wet chemical systems not in compliance...
6 96-21 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 10.2.3.1 (Log # 23 ) Parikh, J. Make the editorial changes in 10.2.3.1 (revised by Committee Action in log # 28, 96-22) to delete and and wet chemical (which appears twice) so it reads: In existing dry or wet chemical systems not in compliance... 96-22 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 23 : 2 Abstain: 0 : 3 10.2.3.1 and 10.2.3.2 (Log # 28 ) Levin, S. Agree with the explanations stated in the negative ballots on the original Report on Proposals. Parikh, J. We do not agree with the Committee Action for 10.2.3.2 which would require all existing fire extinguishing systems to comply with ANSI/UL 300 by January 1, 2014. It is unfair, impractical, and uneconomical for the users of this standard with approved installations to be required to upgrade their existing fire extinguishing systems. Section 1.4.2 in this standard permits AHJs to apply the requirements in this standard retroactively if they determine that the existing situation presents an unacceptable degree of risk. Conroy, M. Grammatical correction needs to be made. Can't have "or wet chemical and wet chemical" in the same sentence. I suggest making this change to the ballot material prior to printing in the ROP in order to cut down on the confusion of this important change. 96-23 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 10.2.3.1 and 10.2.3.2 (Log # 35 ) 96-24 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 17 : 8 Abstain: 0 : 3 10.2.3.2 (Log # 6 )
7 Carr, L. Agree with the submitter. It is unfair to require a User to have to upgrade or replace in order to stay in compliance with the latest installation Standard. If a facility installs equipment in compliance with a Standard and then has to revise the installation every time the Standard is updated, the facility will constantly be revising the installation as long as the Standard continues to be subject to future proposals. This is a costly expense and opens the door for other standards to follow suit. The decision to replace needs to be left up to the AHJ to determine as every case is different. I see this as nothing more than an opportunity for installers to make money. Greenberg, J. Existing systems should be permitted to remain in place as it may be unfair to burden the user with the cost of upgrading a system that was deemed safe at the time it was installed. Section 1.4.2 allows the AHJ to require an upgrade on systems they deem unsafe, which is the preferred path of enforcement. Hiener, C. Agree with the submitter. Leicht, R. It is unfair to have a User subject to continuous burden in order to stay in compliance with the latest installation Standard. If a facility installs equipment in compliance with a Standard and then has to revise the installation every time the Standard is updated, the facility will constantly be revising the installation as long as the Standard continues to be subject to future proposals. The Standard (in 1.1.1) is specifically to provide only the MINIMUM requirements. In 1.4.2, the Standard provides the AHJ the ability to apply any of the requirements retroactively if necessary. By stipulating that an existing system must be replaced, the prerogative of the AHJ to evaluate and authorize a deviation from the minimum standard is retracted. Present language allows the AHJ to make this particular requirement retroactive if he decides to. By inserting a deadline, the Standard circumvents the authority of the AHJ to make an appropriate assessment by assuming that existing installations automatically present a degree of hazard so unacceptable that it requires upgrade regardless of the determination of the AHJ. UL-300 is a test standard, not an installation standard. Prior to UL-300, extinguishing system were listed based on successful performance to an earlier test standard. Although the testing standard has changed, no listing agency has withdrawn any listing of previous listed systems. Levin, S. Agree with the submitter's reasoning, along with the explanations given on the negative ballots on the original Report on Proposals. Lombas, A. Parikh, J. Pavlock, T. I agree with the submitter's reasoning. Agree with the submitter s reasoning. I agree with the submitter's reasoning. 96-25 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 10.2.3.2 (Log # 24 ) 96-26 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 24 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 3 10.4.1 (Log # 4 ) Munger, J. Believe that all electrical receptacles under the protected hood should shut down upon activation of the extinguishing system. While not all cord connected appliances represent an "ignition source" many do and since they are cord connected changes can occur very easily. Shut down is easily accomplished by shut-trip breakers.
8 Leicht, R. The intent of this requirement was to discontinue possible source of re-ignition after a system discharges by an appliance that gives off sufficient heat to cause such re-ignition. It was not a concern for wet chemical flowing into an electrical outlet. No more than the concerns for sprinkler water or foam system agents flowing into outlets. Other than hypothetically or anecdotally, no one has offered any substantiation (real experiential data) that has shown that the present text allows for a significant hazard. One should note that NFPA 96, by scope, is responsible to address fire safety, not every possible occupational safety hazard or health hazard. Otherwise, NFPA 96 would be addressing the widths and travel distances to exits in kitchens, the slipperiness of the floors and the potability of the extinguishing agents and hood cleaning solutions. The Committee had previously addressed this in the Report on Comments for the 2001 edition and rejected the shutting down of all electrical equipment in the protected area stating that they had no evidence provided to them that electrical hazards exist when the fire suppression system is activated. In fact, in the 1978 edition of the Standard, listed electrical equipment was exempt from the shut-off requirement except deep fat fryers. This was a clear indication from the Committee that the concern that they were addressing was the reheating of the appliances with possible re-ignition of a fire under the hood and not electrical conductivity. 96-27 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 11.6.1 (Log # 7 ) 96-28 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 23 : 2 Abstain: 0 : 3 12.1.2.1.1, 12.1.2.2.1 (Log # CC2 ) Besal, B. "Reducing the previous set forth NFPA 96 requirements for solid fuel use allowing smoke flavoring to be conducted under the same exhaust system as conventional fueled appliances both reduces fire protection, and burdens the authority having jurisdiction, who will now be expected to monitor and maintain use requirements in their area. Making exceptions within national standards for individual products that entered the marketplace in conflict with the existing requirements to begin with is dead wrong. Decreasing these requirements because of the quantity of these products that had entered the marketplace opens the gate for an unstable process to be used and modified as seen fit by an industry that has great potential for misuse, and as such, should be avoided at any cost." Murphy, J. Appliances that use solid fuel for flavoring still require the solid fuel to be burning to produce smoke. They are therefore part of the combustion process. Chapter 14 as currently written should apply. 96-29 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 24 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 3 14.3.3 (Log # 25 )
9 Murphy, J. Re-ignition is a serious threat whenever solid fuel is used. A dedicated exhaust system should be provided. 96-30 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 23 : 2 Abstain: 0 : 3 14.3.3, 14.3.4, and 14.3.5 (Log # 16 ) Besal, B. I agree with the submitter of this comment and disagree with allowing use of any solid fuel for flavor enhancement under the same exhaust system as conventional fueled appliances. Murphy, J. Calculations regarding quantities of wood or wood chips is not something a typical restaurant employee should be expected to be competent at. Additionally there is no requirement for extinguishment of the solid fuel at the end of a shift nor a requirement for proper removal of ashes. 96-31 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 23 : 2 Abstain: 0 : 3 14.3.3 and 14.3.4 (Log # 22 ) Besal, B. See my Explanation of on Comment 96-30 (Log #16). Murphy, J. required. Solid fuel used for smoke flavoring still requires the fuel to be involved in combustion. A separate exhaust system should still be 96-32 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 23 : 2 Abstain: 0 : 3 14.3.3 and 14.3.4 (Log # 31 ) Besal, B. See my Explanation of on Comment 96-30 (Log #16). Murphy, J. The proposed language that would allow solid fuel to provide smoke does not require any of the other requirements of chapter 14. Fuel load in the restaurant and its storage, a non-combustible floor under the appliance, portable fire extinguisher/hose provisions, et cetera would not apply to these appliances. No real testing has been done to assure that grease laden wood or wood chips under the gas burners of a char-broiler will not become a significant fire threat to a place of public assembly. Chapter 14 should still require a separate exhaust system and still require all other requirements.
10 96-33 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 14.3.4 (Log # 14 ) 96-34 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 23 : 2 Abstain: 0 : 3 14.3.4, A.14.3.4 (Log # CC1 ) Besal, B. See my Explanation of on Comment 96-30 (Log #16). Murphy, J. A separate exhaust system for all solid fuel with all of the requirements of chapter 14 are appropriate due to the increased risk from sparks/embers, re-ignition of grease soaked wood chips, and products of decomposition, such as creosote that will still form in the ductwork creating the dangerous situation that was intended to be avoided by maintaining chapter 14 as written. Parikh, J. Make following editorial corrections: (1) in item 14.3.4 (4), revise to read: exceed 2 kg (4.5 lbs) per hour per 29.3 kw, and (2) in item A.14.3.4 (4), in the 3rd line, delete of after (4.5 lbs). 96-35 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 25 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 3 A.11.6.1 (New) (Log # 29 ) Parikh, J. Make following editorial corrections: (1) under Equipment for Cleaning Personnel, in 1st line, change of to for (between personnel and commercial ), (2) under Preparation, in 2nd line, change appliance to appliances, and in 3rd line, change out and tagged out to out, tagged out., and (3) under B.2 Informational References, delete 19 at the end. 96-36 Eligible To Vote:28 Affirmative: 24 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 3 B.1.2.1 (Log # 34 )
11 Ray, S. I am voting negative because this new ASHRAE 154 language will not be necessary if my opposition to comment 96-17 (Log #17) is shared by many others on the TC.