I never have liked reading these pissing matches and have never entered into one....
However, from the skimming I have done in this and other threads, it appears that a PRIVATE intenty (Phil) is being used as the "standard". Is that HIS fault? Maybe... maybe not.... He certainly has the position to push his branding. No matter how smart or business savvy he is, there should not be a "HE" (or she) that is a standard.
Let the hood manufactures detail HOW the hoods should be cleaned. Then make the cleaners take a 50 question test with a governed (State?) licensing board to see if they have the knowledge and skills to maintain / clean a hood. This is the "standard" that MANY agencies use. Besides, a State Board will be a better authority (or rather avenue) than a local fire marshal. I have seen MANY new establishments that receive a C.O.O. with NO inspection from the fire marshal. And as a fire tech, I don't call the board everytime I see a violation, I call the company that is doing the work incorrectly. It's a type if "self regulation". What good is a "certification" if nobody will back that certification up? I.E. local / state fire marshals.
I have been working on portable extinguishers and fixed systems for several years. All I had to do (basically) was be certified by the MANUFACTURE to show my competence and then complete a State test (plus $1 zillion in fees) and then I am licensed.
What a GRAND IDEA! Who knows hoods better than the people that design and manufacture them! They know what a hood will look like in X months and what it should need. And if they DON'T, maybe people that are making these pushes should push for the hood manufactures to get training staff on board so that THEY will be compliant with "the new" NFPA or UL 300 or whatever "standard" is handed to them! Thus, taking the responsibility or liability off of Phil or Mr. Clark (as Phil called him
)
I never ONCE had an Amerex instructor tell me "what to do if I find a piece of paper lodged into the discharge nozzle". I kinda figured some stuff out on my own because I have common sense.
If you set a "step by step" certification, EVERY hood cleaner will be looking at Phil on the witness stand with him saying "I told you NOT to lay that plastic on the floor..." ..... And you will be sitting there thinking to yourself "what does the plastic on the floor have ANYTHING to do with me being liable for this building burning..."? These standards need to be a general guideline, written by UNBIASED parties.
I hope you see the point I am making with the above analogy. It's almost like Phil is setting each and every one of us up to be the insurances skate goat. In no way am I saying he IS, it could possibly lead to something like that. I mean, he IS an expert witness. I am sure he (like any of us) work for whoever has the deepest pockets.
It is unethical for someone to profit from a position of enforcement (NFPA Board). It would be similar to a police officer saying "You MUST have MY driving school before you can get your drivers license; the cost is $5000 if you attend, or you can take it via the Internet for $2000, how would you like to pay?" So, if the intent is NOT to profit from the standards, Phil or anyone else that is on the board should step back and say "I am leaving my position to start my own business" or "I am no longer certifying hood cleaners, let's get these NFPA codes going!"
There just seems to be a conflict of interest here.....
I'd much rather be sitting down with everyone in a meeting and having an open discussion.... not in an Internet forum.