Are we in the fire prevention business

Are exhaust cleaners in the fire prevention business?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 57.9%

  • No

    Votes: 16 42.1%
  • Total voters
    38
I'll edit out the fire prevention line. Thanks for catching that for me.

Our main purpose is cleaning the hoods.

If you want to get into the fire prevention business, like Grant, then get into the fire prevention business. He is licensed, certified and educated to prevent fires and sells himself as a fire prevention expert. He states clearly what he does and the customer understands when they hire Grant exactly what they are getting. But just because Grant is a fire preventer, who happens to have his employees clean hoods, doesn't mean that his hood cleaning is preventing the fires.

His fire suppresant systems PREVENT the fire. His hood cleaning only lessens the length of the burn when there is a fire.

Design, installation and inspection prevent fires, not hood cleaning.

Hood cleaning and fire prevention are 2 distinctly different things.

Maybe I'm not making myself very clear.

This thread is about, Is a hood cleaner a fire preventer?

A hood cleaner does nothing to "prevent" the fire. They may lessen the burn when there is a fire, but not "prevent" it.

As far as the NFPA 96 standards, most of the code, 99%, refers to design, installation and inspection of the grease exhaust system.

Section 11 references Inspection schedule and to not disable the fire suppressant system. It states that if grease is found, that it is to be removed.

Removing the grease DOESN"T prevent the fire. It lessens the length of the burn, but doesn't prevent the fire.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but as a hood cleaner, I'm not in the fire prevention business.
 
I think this whole discourse needs a basis of understanding. What is the legal, NFPA or whatever is accepted by the authority having jurisdiction as the definition of "fire prevention." I think some are going off in different directions over the semantics of fire prevention.

I think of fire as fire in the kitchen cooking area that has the capacity to climb into the duct and ignite the fuel source therein before getting doused by the anul system. Removing the fuel in this case would therefore prevent the fire (from doing further damage) - ie. fire prevention. The fire may have flared up from the cooking area and gone uncontrollable to the kitchen staff. If the plenum, hood, filters and ducts are heavily grease laden surely any reasonable person is going to see the fire hazard. If the areas are cleaned to bare metal the fire cannot gain a foothold prior to the ansul system dousing it. The people who cleaned the system can logically be said to have had a hand in preventing the fire from doing anymore significant damage, i.e. "Fire Prevention."


Fire in the ceiling of the restaurant that's extinguished by sprinklers and stays in the ceiling area has no impact on the hood nor will a clean hood prevent that. Fire in the parking lot started by some zealous superbowl tailgaters is not going to impact a grease laden restaurant exhaust system. Fire in your pants will not impact a grease encrusted duct unless you happen to be stuck inside and are burning at 1200 degrees.

RE: the legal aspects, whenever there is a fire the insurance companies call everybody into the court, usually civil. It is up to you as the defendant to prove to the judge "by a preponderance of the evidence" that your company should not be considered part of this suit because your company cleaned all accessible areas to BM and made the management aware in writing of any inaccessible areas with signature to back up the evidential paper work which you bring. You cannot be accused of negligence of duty. You may also show photos which will further clinch this point. Unfortunately, you will have attorney's fees to deal with and have time lost in court waiting to testify. The insurance companies go after the weak link and if you don't have supporting documentation you are gold to them ( money in their pockets ), even if you cleaned the system to bare metal. That's what PA is paid to look for.
 
RustyACE said:
His fire suppresant systems PREVENT the fire. His hood cleaning only lessens the length of the burn when there is a fire.

Design, installation and inspection prevent fires, not hood cleaning.

Hood cleaning and fire prevention are 2 distinctly different things.
This thread is about, Is a hood cleaner a fire preventer?

A hood cleaner does nothing to "prevent" the fire. They may lessen the burn when there is a fire, but not "prevent" it.

As far as the NFPA 96 standards, most of the code, 99%, refers to design, installation and inspection of the grease exhaust system.

Section 11 references Inspection schedule and to not disable the fire suppressant system. It states that if grease is found, that it is to be removed.

Removing the grease DOESN"T prevent the fire. It lessens the length of the burn, but doesn't prevent the fire.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but as a hood cleaner, I'm not in the fire prevention business.
Click to expand...


Oh Rusty, just a month ago I thought "ok Rusty is now starting to sound like he is learning something" and now this!

Automatic fire supression systems do not prevent fires they are a suppression device meant to extinguish a fire. It is not possible for an Ansul, Pyro-chem, Range-Guard or any other "suppression" system to prevent a fire.
You are right to a point on Exhaust duct cleaning not preventing a fire, it will reduce the risk of and lesson the severity of a duct fire if one should occur. The maintenance portion is solely for this purpose as nobody cares what the inside of the ductwork looks like if it wont catch or spread fire.
 
Maybe we are in the "risk reduction" business...
Rusty do you have the exhuast system on your vehicle cleaned by a trained, licensed and certified mechanic? Does he scrape it to bare metal? Does he have a nifty magnetic scraper? or does he use a pipe spinner?
There is no fire prevention purpose to clean a vehicle exhaust system and as such it is not addressed as a regular maintenance issue..unlike a commercial kitchens exhaust system.
 
The only point that I'm making is this. A clean or dirty hood, will not PREVENT the fire.

You have chosen the wrong word to describe what it is that you are doing.

Risk Reduction is pretty close.

The other point that I'm making is this: If you preach that you are a fire preventer and there is a fire (which there eventually will be), you obviously didn't do a very good job of preventing the fire and will be held accountable.

Next point: Anyone can be sued for any reason. I agree with pictures, documentation and being able to prove that you did what you said you did.

Next point: Who profits when lowly hood cleaners accept the responsibility (liability) of being a "fire preventer" when they have nothing to do with preventing the fire?

The overall point that I'm trying to make is this: Some are buying into the theory that it's there fault if there is a fire in the grease exhaust system. The grease exhaust system is designed, installed and inspected for the SOLE purpose of containing and controlling the fire. How can you PREVENT a fire from going up a system that is designed with it's entire existence to handle said fire and control it.

I have studied the NFPA 96 and UL 1978 and 2221 thoroughly, and if a grease exhaust system is designed and installed with these standards, it doesn't matter how much grease is in the ductwork, it will contain and control the fire.

Now, it is up to a properly trained, qualified and certified person to point out these deficiencies to the proper authority having jurisdiction and have them taken care of.

Now if the grease exhaust system doesn't control and contain the fire then why? Clearance to combustibles? Leaking Ductwork? No filters? Improper air flow through the system? Loose piping?

I believe in cleaning a grease exhaust system to bare metal, but I don't buy into the theory that it's my fault if it burns.

I am not the AHJ and I can't MAKE the restaurant owner bring his grease exhaust system up to code (or modern day standards).

If I don't have the POWER to make someone change their system, then I don't have the RESPONSIBILITY if it burns. It's my job to point out to them what's wrong, it's the AHj's responsibility to MAKE them fix it.
 
So, should we start a new thread "Are we in the Risk Reduction business"? or does everyone agree with that term?
 
Rusty,

I see where you are coming from and it would be an ideal scenario for all if everything was the way you want it. Seeing how you are involved directly with NFPA - perhaps you can make your voice heard, however in this litigious society I think it might only fall on deaf ears. You argument I don't have the power to make them change, etc. sounds like that old -"since I'm old enough to die for my country I am old enough to buy alcohol" and we know how far that gets one.

I think ye olde hood cleaner is part of the fire prevention process - in reducing the fire's damage. Whether I buy into it or not - it's a factum of life. Where people are having difficulty is in the definition of "fire prevention." The important part howver is, what does the law see as the definition.

The point about documentation is when you are subpoenaed before a civil judge and the insurance comps say your company is at fault - having sufficient proof to convince the judge of non-culpability is your burden, by a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, he's convinced that you can not be presented with any blame because you had a ton of proof to back you up and dismisses you from the process. Then they go after the ansul guy, the guy who changes the links, the maker of the duct, the filter maker, the electrician who installed the fan, the contactor who oversaw the installation of the hood, the building inspector who OK'd the job, the company that makes the links, the company that rolled the steel, the meat packing plant that sold the beef, the farmer who grew the animals, etc. Each and everyone who can't prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they should not be held liable is then sued for millions. The lawyers get richer, the judges get fatter and the insurance companies get even.



As Hank Williams Sr. used to say," Don't worry too often too much about nothing 'cause everything won't never be alright no how."
 
I know in the state of MA, if you clean a system that is out of compliance with NFPA 96 standards and don't notify the state fire marshal in writing, you are held liable.

He then contacts the restaurant and shuts them down till they fix whatever needs fixing.

A proactive State FM makes all the difference in the world with compliance issues.

When you've got a FM who will not only back you up, but shut down the restaurant until they are compliant, then you've got some teeth.

But to blame the hood cleaner when there are so many other obvious flaws in the system, is just piling on.

Now the point I'm making ASSUMES that the hood cleaner actually cleaned the grease exhaust system. If you didn't and charged for it, then you don't have a leg to stand on.
 
mbryan said:
That's a great question. Maybe the question that should be asked should be: Can a system be fire safe if it is not fully clean?
Click to expand...

If the answer turns out to be no then exhaust cleaners are providing...fire prevention services uh I mean risk reduction services
 
So it sounds like the AHJ is the preventer, and the approving inspector should be the one held liable for a faulty system. I like the sound of that. We can be the "watchdogs" for the AHJ's and have the responsibility of reporting faulty systems. Who would we contact on a state level for this issue?
 
State Fire Marshal?
or the Governator! (California only)
 
If you like the term risk reduction over fire prevention then we can use risk reduction,but it is still risk of fire reduction lol!.Rusty,since you are on the NFPA 96 commitee,I think a valuable goal would be to try an enact an increase in service intervals ,say from monthly for high volume operations,to quarterly for the lowest volume establishments,determined by the local ahj,with a standard guideline from the NFPA to go by,and if not met the place is shut down till the service is completed.As it stands now quarterly is usually the best you can hope for ,to biannual to yearly or never.Since we are required to clean to bare metal,and a week later in a fry joint or bbq place there is a noticeable grease buildup,to bare metal does not last that long.Also the health benefits,as you stated before,I bet the health inspector would love to see the amount of mice feces in some dirty kitchen exhaust systems .If that same condition existed within eyesight,like in the walk in cooler,or on the floor in the kitchen,the place would be fined or shut down by the health inspector,but it is out of sight and out of mind.I think a good place to start is the insurance companies,it would be to their benefit(and ours) to have the system cleaned weekly.I know that won't happen,but monthly really is not all that unrealistic,and if it is an enforced law,the restaurant owner ,or manager or who ever has no choice if they want to stay open.I think if the general public knew what some of the kitchen exhaust systems looked like in some of their favorite eating establishments(especially oriental restaurants!) There would be more pressure put on the ahj's to establish stricter guidelines.It should not be left up to the restaurant owner,just as when you get your car inspected is not up to you ,frequency of service for kitchen exhaust systems should not be at the discretion of the restaurant operator.I definately think the monthly to quarterly at the longest would be one of the best thing that could happen to this industry.When I owned a pizza place ,The management company that owned the building let me know when the Kitchen exhaust system was due to be cleaned(they kept track ,and required quarterly service) and I had to contact the hood cleaning company that they used to schedule service.I had no choice,they ran a tight ship and were strict..When I owned a chicken and rib place in another location,It was up to me ,and the requirement was biannually,and that is when I had it done,but it probably should have been done monthly,or quarterly at the least( 2 henny penny pressure fryers,4 open fryers,4' chargrill,and a salamander broiler going 7 days a week from 11am till 11pm).I had a filter service change my filters out every two weeks,and I cleaned the outside of the hood,and the inside that the public could see every night,and always passed my health inspections with flying colors,but if my picky health inspector would have looked behind those filters,I am sure she would have not been so full of praise!

I know most of this post is off topic,but the fire prevention versus just a cleaning service debate here is really a mute point,it is up to you to CYA,at all costs with the quality of your service,the thoroughness of your documentation of difficiencies,and unsafe conditions,because that is what will protect you (hopefully)when a blood thirsty attorney decides to drag you into court and rake you over the coals.If a place you serviced has a fire,you could say your in what ever business you want to say you are in,the burden of proof is on you to prove you were not negligent.
 
Last edited:
Well stated
 
Here's a solution. What if we all agree not to clean any system that has issues that may make it a fire hazard? Then The restaurant people will not find anyone to clean there systems, when they get inspected they will tell the inspectors, you can’t shut me down because every cleaning company refuses to clean it. Then the inspectors will come to us to find out why.

Yeah that's it that will get things done.

Oh wait I think the weekend warrior down the street will probably still clean it for peanuts, and have moved to Brazil by the time it burns down, and that will give us all a bad name, and come to think of it, I would lose probably half my business overnight if I refused to clean every restaurant with deficiencies in the exhaust system.

In my opinion we should put semantics aside (fire preventer or fire minimizer) what ever you want to use. This is what I have a problem with. The shear numbers of systems that are in use that have serious accessibility issues, or code violations, even in new restaurants. (I looked at one last week, brand new and the entire duct is inaccessible hidden inside a wall) I would guess 5 grand just to make it accessible, but I don’t know.

Why is this stuff is allowed to happen? I tried to talk to a building inspector at the airport and he wouldn’t give the time of day, I guess my educational back ground wasn’t good enough for him. The Airport by the way (Reagan National) doesn’t have one duct that is fully accessible, and many are severely inaccessible, if you are ever there make sure you know where the emergency exit’s are, you may have to leave in a hurry.
 
Bryan,It seems (in a real world),that would be the perfect place to get some attention about access and design problems we are up against.Alot of lives on the line at an airport.Better have your paperwork and pictures ready...
 
Oh we do, they actually have had a Fire Marshall for the airport come out while we clean, and I have personally shown him every existing problem, and we both took pictures.
 
I was in a place last week that had water dripping from the weld from the duct to hood. The lady wanted to know what I did to cause the leak. I told I removed the grease from the hole in her weld, and the installer needed to be contacted for the repair.

This place is only a year old, no excuse for a poor weld or a passed inspection. I think the inspectors need to be held accountable for passing bad inspections. Maube I should call channel 2 news.:p
 
Thanks Grant.Bryan ,I think getting the fire marshal directly involved in the case of the airport is great.I think we walk a fine line between being proficient at what we do,and trying to point out problems to our accounts,but the flip side is if you point all these things out that no other KEC contractor ever has,and inform the ahj,it's great,but when the account has to lay out thousands of dollars to correct the problem,some won't look at you as a caring professional,they look at you like a trouble maker who just made a severe dent in their botttom line.But so be it,if it saves lives and property,and it's your a## on the line if you didn't point out the safety issues,and you were the last one to service the system.
In my post above,I mentioned about the managemant company who owned the building where my pizza place was located.I forgot to mention that the reason they were so tight with the hood cleaning schedule was because my place had a grease fire in the kitchen,that destroyed the restaurant and almost destroyed the whole building 8 years previous(I didn't own it then,it was two owners before me),and after they rebuilt,the management company became very proactive in the kitchen exhaust cleaning and servicing schedule.I can't believe I left that out of my previous post because it is pretty significant to my story,but it has been about 6 years since I sold that place.
Josh,I know your just joking around about the channel 2 news,but that also falls under the category of walking a fine line,if you were to publicly complain about a fire inspector about a major flaw he missed during an inspection and it came back on him,now you have fire inspector in you area with ,(for lack of a better term)a severe hard on for you,and he could make it very difficult for you behind the scenes.I think it is better to work with the ahj's,and to make an ally than an enemy.I am sure you know that already,but it is something to think about.

Jim
 
I was thinkin shadow image exclusive, tonight at 9...only on channel 2.:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top