You know I never ever joke around.
The building inspector inspected a resturant and noticed the unprotected range and charbroiler. He told them they had 30 days to bring the sytem to code. I understand our name came up in the discussion. They called about 3 weeks ago, but I have been busy and did not get into the resturant until Friday AM. I probably did not look to presentable after being up until 4:00 AM doing an install. But I did brush my teeth and comb my hair in the parking lot.
The 3.5 gallon tanks are listed in the manual dated 9.1.2000 as being UL 300 compliant. The new tanks would require new nozzles, and new piping. I can do the job quicker by using the existing stuff and adding the required nozzles. I did find the requirement to replace the chemical at the HT. I priced out HT, new chemical and valve rebuilds. Then I added $100.00 because the guy lied to me. Actually I added $200.00 because he lied to me 2 times. Then I remembered he does not pay his bills very well. The proposal now reads 50 % down upon acceptance, 25% when starting work and the balance upon completion. I dont' trust the guy, and don't need the work right now, so I added another little bit. We're already behind on hood work, and 2 sprinkler jobs. On the 13th we start another low voltage job. I wish I could find 2 guys to clean hoods and another suppression tech. Or at least people who wanted to work.
And no, we cannot put wet chemical in place of dry chemical. Upgrading to a UL 300 can only be done by changing tank, pipeing and nozzles. The dry chemial did offer some saponification, but not a much as the liquid chemical. The liquid also offers some cooling effect the dry chemical did not. Did you know the appliance coverage was the reason for the upgrade? The duct and plenum coverage stayed the same.
Thanks for the response.
Douglas Hicks
General Fire Equipment Co of Eastern Oregon, Inc