“NFPA 96 has some very vague wording in their code concerning the requirements for grease containment systems,” states Daniel P. Restelli, P.E., Engineering Group Leader for Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. and member of the NFPA 96 committee. “Therefore, Underwriters Laboratories developed strict requirements that address the overall principles of NFPA 96 for our testing of these products. I’m not saying other products aren’t good, but in this particular case independent third-party lab has looked at a product and has certified it as complying with the published requirements that are generically accepted by the code. We also provide documentation that the product meets all the requirements.”

The real issue is that many of the products on market create more of fire hazard than the grease itself. “Any product can claim to be NFPA 96 compliant,” Restelli remarks. “By having a third-party independent lab conduct the tests, however, proves the product is compliant.” Simply stating that a product meets NFPA 96 code does not guarantee it has been tested for full compliance with those codes.

Underwriters Laboratories also inspects the manufacturing facilities a minimum of four times each year to ensure they are in compliance with UL requirements and that the product is being built the same as when it was tested. Plus, they make sure the product bears the UL service mark as well as a date code when the product was manufactured for service.

The following tests were conducted on representative samples of the Grease Guard System. In each cause, tests were conducted both on dry systems and systems which had been soaked in vegetable oil.

Flaming Brand Test- The system was installed on a wood surface. Flaming wood brands, approximately 1-1/2 by 1-1/2 by ¾ in. overall were dropped onto the surface of the Grease Guard System. This test demonstrates the effects of the system being exposed to flaming solid particles falling onto the system from a grease duct ventilator. In each case, the system did not sustain combustion and burning was confined to the immediate area of the brand. There was no evidence of burning or ignition of the supporting surface.

Flaming Grease Test- The system installed on a wood surface. A quantity of vegetable oil was ignited and allowed to burn for 20 seconds. Drops of flaming oil were than allowed to fall on the Grease Guard system at intervals of 10 seconds between drops. This test demonstrates the effect of flaming oil dripping onto the system from a ventilator. In each case, the system did not sustain combustion and burning was confined to the immediate area of the brand. There was no evidence of burning or ignition of the supporting.

Fire Exposure Test- The Grease Guard System was installed on a roof structure as described in our standard for Fire Resistance of Roof Covering Materials, UL 790. An intermittently applied Luminous Gas Flame at a temperature of 1400°F was applied to the system. During the test, the airflow was maintained at 12 MPH. This test demonstrates the effect on the system should flame be applied t the system from an external flame source.

During the test, flaming was confined to the Grease Guard System and there was no evidence of spread of the flame beyond the system and not evidence of burning of the roof deck under the system. In addition, there was no evidence of burning particles being blown by the 12-MPH airflow.

Rain Test (Dry) - A representative sample of the Grease Guard System was subjected to a one-hour application of simulated rain. After the application of rain, vegetable oil was dripped on the system. During the test, water drained from the system and had no apparent effect on the ability of the system to absorb oil.

Rain Test (Oil Soaked) - An oil soaked Grease Guard System was subjected to a one hour application of simulated rain. During the test, observations were made and there was no evidence of oil being washed from system. Upon completion of the test, the system continued to be able to absorb oil.