FROM THE FIELD
November 2005
What Went Wrong At The ICC Hearing

The regulatory world has just clunked an oblivious foodservice industry on the head—and it’s our own fault.

In late September the Int’l. Code Council decided to require Type-I hoods be designed and installed to automatically activate the exhaust fan “through an interlock with the cooking appliances, by means of heat sensors or means of other approved methods.” The point is that any cooking, by gas or electric appliances, will activate the fan.

Interlocks may or may not be a fine idea, but the question was whether they should be required by code. Arguments against the move ranged all over the place. Some said the subject matter fell outside the Int’l. Mechanical Code, where it was being proposed. Others said the customary steps—filing a formal statement of need and reasonableness, for example—hadn’t been followed. Others pointed out no research had been presented. And then there were cost—estimated at $500 or more per location—and a variety of liability and warranty issues. Just about everyone said the rule simply wasn’t needed because cooking is generally a closely tended activity, and people run exhaust fans when they need to—it’s not like running an untended furnace or water heater, where the Int’l. Fuel Gas Code requires an interlock to assure proper ventilation of combustion gases.

But the measure passed anyway, mainly because foodservice operators didn’t show up for the debate.

Why not? It’s not like we didn’t know it was coming. The proposal was presented at ICC in February and publicly posted. A public comment period ran into June. The NAFEM Technical Liaison Committee addressed the issue. Tom Johnson, Johnson Diversified Products, acted as an industry liaison, sounding an alarm and generally trying to herd the cats.

At the spring meeting of the National Restaurant Association’s MAECO group, Don Fisher of Fisher-Nickel Inc., who’s active in ASHRAE and whose company runs the PG&E Food Service Technology Center, alerted the chain facilities types. He urged them to file letters and cautioned them that showing up at the ICC meeting would be crucial.

The regulators showed up. Foodservice operators didn't. Not a single one.

Meanwhile, the Up Your Stack.com monthly e-newsletter also passed the word. And our May 31 FER Fortnightly e-newsletter urged readers to weigh in during the public comment period, complete with links.

The result? One public comment filed in favor—by the proposal’s author, a code official. Nine foodservice people filed eight public comments against passage. Individuals representing Caddy Corp., Cornerstone Applebees Restaurant, the Electric Foodservice Council, Franke Foodservice Systems, Hobart Corp., LTD Consulting Group, NAFEM, NRA and White Castle cared enough to draft letters against the measure.

When the September meeting came, however, Fisher and Johnson were joined only by Joel Hipp of Hobart Corp. and Rich Swierczyna of the Commercial Kitchen Ventilation Lab. An entire industry, with 800,000 to 1 million outlets, left it to just four individuals to hold the fort.

It's possible that operators simply had no problem with the code change, of course. But it's more likely we just plain didn't pay attention.

Brian Ward
Chief Editor