tear up your cleaning certificate

P

Phil Ackland

KEC Expert
Feb. 26th 2003

Dear Exhaust Cleaners

I just returned from the Phoenix NFPA 96 Committee meeting where we looked at proposals for the 2004 #96 Standard.

There I learned how some very important people are “interpreting” the 96 and it was scary.

If your Cleaning Certificates or any other documentation you use says “Inspect or Clean the exhaust system in accordance to NFPA 96” (or words to that effect), I suggest you give serious thought to tearing them up and burning them immediately.

Why?

Because according to some fire investigators (who are taking cleaners to court), this wording means you are inspecting and cleaning in accordance with every Section, Chapter and Verse of the ENTIRE 96 Standard.

So, according to this line of thought, if there is anything wrong with any part of the system you were recently in, then you are liable. (Look up Application in NFPA #96 1.3.1* 2001ed.) I absolutely disagree with this argument, but that won’t help you in the short term.

And, if you are claiming to be “Certified” than it is even worse (according to them).

I will explain more later. But what do you think?

This message shall be applied as a united whole
:)
 
Last edited:
Phil

My certificate states " This certifies that A 1 Air Vent serviced the above establishment according to NFPA 96 Standards". I have been using this because the word Standards implies to bare metal. What should we use to express that we clean to a "national practice"?

Nice to have you on this section.

David
 
Hi Dave
I am not kidding when I say that some think this means the whole Standard. And I believe they are winning with this argument in court. There are a lot of other considerations of course, but this is the mian "stake in the heart"
I have a could of answers but am looking for debate. Everyone need to know this.
 
nfpa recommendations

Phil, Here we are as KES Cleaners trying to cya in noting a standard for a level of profeciency . And then someone turns it around on us. Could you mention the city and state where these suits took place? I for one would like to look it up. How are we to note our service on the hood sticker now? Since it is all a recommendation only, is it necessary to put up a sticker at all? Worst case senario, dousnt that just make us an easy target now? And I just printed a batch of stickers last night!

Michael T / Centex Pressure Washing Service
 
Hello Phil,

As always thanks for your input of what's going on.

Here is the Hood Stickers that we have been using for several years.

Dave Olson
 

Attachments

  • kitchen hood sticker.jpg
    kitchen hood sticker.jpg
    22.9 KB · Views: 216
Like Matt said what if we get more specific as to which part of the code we are talking about?
Sounds like a question for a lawyer!
 
How does this sound "Cleaned all accessible areas in accordance to NFPA 96 2001 Edition Section 11.4.2"

Anyone else have a idea-This was taken from another person who will remain nameless. I am thinking about adding this to my cert. with a hand stamp.

David
 
Why not just say, "Cleaned all accessible areas to the bare metal " and leave it at that. It seems to me that if we give the lawyers, investigators and inspectors a hook they will hang us from it. The hook seems to be NFPA 96 and certified. If we make reference to the codes and certification we better damn well be ready to explain them letter and verse.
 
So we can mention NFPA standerds 96 chapter 8. But we should not claim to clean to those standerds on a proposal or sticker.Tell me if im right........Bryan Central Cal Pressure Wash.
 
Phil, who are the "very important people"? that were at the Committee meeting ?
 
The way I understand Phil's statement is that if our certificates or paperwork mention NFPA ANYthing - we are saying NFPA EVERYthing, so if you write "clean/inspect to NFPA 96" - you in fact take ownership of the whole system - even the parts you didn't know about, see, touch or come into contact with-it's all yours to be responsible for. And if you say certified you are held even more responsible, since you are certified and should know more than everyone else so you should have to pay more for the fire damages. It's knd of like the old "Catch 22." By the way, Phil did not cause this happen, he is bringing it to our attention. Also, don't get pissed at me, I'm just trying to make sense of the whole thing, too!
 
I'm sure Phil was a spectator to this whole thing and I thank him for his involvement and for letting us know what some of the on goings were at the meeting. My curiosity just wants to know which of the committee members were taking this stance. It sounds quite unusual for them.
 
You folks read the blurb in the paper the other day, if your car gets nuked - it ain't covered by insurance. That got me wondering how this worsening economy is going to effect the restaurant industry, specifically that segment that might be prone to accidental "insurance" fires. "The fire started in the kitchen...." Insurance companies are looking for their outs, and that accidental fire might have been helped by the grease in the ducts that was inaccessible. So who are they going to go after???? the grease stack cleaners!

Seems to me that NFPA is designed to cover the fire departments, insurance companies and restauranteurs. The little old hood cleaner is not a large part of that equation. What we should be looking for - is a way to return ownership of the liability back to the restaurants, if that is possible. Is it the same thing as, man has drink in bar, drives home and has accident; bar is dragged into court as liable. Hood company cleans/inspects hood the restaurant has fire, hood cleaner is dragged into court. That's what is happening! (Ignorance of the law is no excuse, either.) Lawyers want that day, week-month in court, their clock is always running! I can just hear the prosecutor," Mr. Hood cleaner, tell the court what you mean by inaccessible areas...
After you blather your way through an explanation, he scowls, "And you call yourself a certified hood cleaner."
 
mbryan said:
What if we just say "Cleaned in accordance with NFPA 96 section 11.4.2"?

There is a company here in LA claiming to be certified by the NFPA, I guess he's in trouble. What about IKECA and PWNA certifications? Those are still valid certifications, no?
Click to expand...

Matt has the right idea. but you need to add the year of the Standard you are quoting. Be very specific and you will be safer.
Phil
 
Tear up your Cert, they are no longer any good.

Get a Certificate from a National non Profit. Gov will not Be recognizing these

Phil Ackland said:
Feb. 26th 2003

Dear Exhaust Cleaners

I just returned from the Phoenix NFPA 96 Committee meeting where we looked at proposals for the 2004 #96 Standard.

There I learned how some very important people are “interpreting” the 96 and it was scary.

If your Cleaning Certificates or any other documentation you use says “Inspect or Clean the exhaust system in accordance to NFPA 96” (or words to that effect), I suggest you give serious thought to tearing them up and burning them immediately.

Why?

Because according to some fire investigators (who are taking cleaners to court), this wording means you are inspecting and cleaning in accordance with every Section, Chapter and Verse of the ENTIRE 96 Standard.

So, according to this line of thought, if there is anything wrong with any part of the system you were recently in, then you are liable. (Look up Application in NFPA #96 1.3.1* 2001ed.) I absolutely disagree with this argument, but that won’t help you in the short term.

And, if you are claiming to be “Certified” than it is even worse (according to them).

I will explain more later. But what do you think?

This message shall be applied as a united whole
:)
Click to expand...
 
Still waiting on the sky to fall...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top