Comments on NFPA 96 proposals

[Phil Ackland]

I am finally getting back to those NFPA 96 Proposals I spoke about a week or so ago. Sorry for the wait.

Click on the link below and see one page of the proposed changes to the 2004 NFPA 96

http://www.philackland.com/temp/Page1.pdf

I submitted this proposal to help protect exhaust cleaners (or any service provider) from broad based liability. Presently, some attorneys are using the logic that whoever was the last one (service provider) near the exhaust (or suppression) system then that service provider “owned it.” I have always thought that this was patently unfair.

The service provider may have some limited responsibilities to report serious issues (the word “serious” is also debatable) -- but service providers did not construct, design, install or (likely) previously maintain the system. So why were they suddenly responsible for these aspects?

Now if they make the claim to be some sort of “Certified Inspectors” that is a different issue.

It is my hope that this Proposal (which appears to have survived the process so far) will ultimately succeed in protecting you – the exhaust cleaner

 

[Phil Ackland]

This proposal will assist you in keeping the prices and some degree of the liability down.

http://www.philackland.com/temp/page33.pdf

Also see
http://www.philackland.com/temp/page34.pdf

I have never liked the wording “bare metal,” (some systems will never be “bare metal” -- at least not for less that $10,000+!!!)
But I could never come up with anything that the committee would accept as better wording. This proposal was actually the brainchild of Mark Finck of Burger King (a new committee member). He realizes that his stores can never be cleaned to bare metal. So you have Burger King to thank for this one (kind of weird ah?)

More to come as time allows -- stay tuned.