Not NFPA 96 Standards
- Thread starter mbryan
- Start date
Looks like Crystals growing..
M.Hinderliter
New member
What is it about this picture that makes it "Not NPFA 96 Standard"?
David Saulque
Senior Moderator
Thats OK Mike-we know you are from Texas.
David
David
M.Hinderliter
New member
Matt,
I think an argument can be made that this is being cleaned to bare metal. I personally and professionally think it is highly questionable. But I do see bare metal in your pictures.
I also think there are contractors out there that would conscider this bare metal. I also think some inspectors would pass this as compliant with the standard.
Looks like this might be a bit of a debate. I am curious to see what other contractors think.
By the way, nice work and glad to see you quoted the 2001 edition of NFPA 96.
I think an argument can be made that this is being cleaned to bare metal. I personally and professionally think it is highly questionable. But I do see bare metal in your pictures.
I also think there are contractors out there that would conscider this bare metal. I also think some inspectors would pass this as compliant with the standard.
Looks like this might be a bit of a debate. I am curious to see what other contractors think.
By the way, nice work and glad to see you quoted the 2001 edition of NFPA 96.
kmjt1021
Member
OK my thoughts.
I have never seen an inspector actually open anything up and look, and while it is debatable if this is compliant you have significantly reduced the fire risk, which is the purpose. If someone would question it I think the pictures would be the only argument needed. I would question the inspector as to why it was allowed to get in that shape in the first place.
We often do go in with the idea of just making it manageable for the next cleaning if it is really bad to begin with. The alternative is to charge so much that they get someone else who may just skim over it, take the money and run, leaving essentially the same hazard they started with.
my two cents
I have never seen an inspector actually open anything up and look, and while it is debatable if this is compliant you have significantly reduced the fire risk, which is the purpose. If someone would question it I think the pictures would be the only argument needed. I would question the inspector as to why it was allowed to get in that shape in the first place.
We often do go in with the idea of just making it manageable for the next cleaning if it is really bad to begin with. The alternative is to charge so much that they get someone else who may just skim over it, take the money and run, leaving essentially the same hazard they started with.
my two cents
David Saulque
Senior Moderator
We all agree that just because a company spends 6 hours on a unit that has been abused for years and presto a new system. No the process takes time over several cleanings. The important thing is what the client receive in written and oral communization. The issue must be very clear that this is a process over time and the unit is manageable with respect to NFPA 96.
David
David