Re: UL Required to get License

[Nomen Nescio <nobody@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bob Worthy said:

>They need to be regulated so that they can't get away with doing only 3-10 %
>of the required inspections (documented and admitted to by UL
>representatives at an ECLB board meeting) and think this is all right for
>life safety. This is next to criminal. The AHJ's assume that UL is taking
>care of the required inspections. They are not! That means a system could
>vertually go uninspected for 10 years and systems that are to far away from
>a central station may never get inspected. They have been caught taking the
>money and not doing what the AHJ's expected them to do.

You're under a grave misunderstanding about what UL does and how the
inspection program works.  There's nothing even remotely criminal about it.
And if the AHJs assume that UL is "taking care of the required
inspections," then the AHJs are complete morons.  (Which, of course, they
often are.)  UL's services are spelled out right on the front of every UL
certificate, so it's hardly a secret.

UL inspects and lists companies, not systems.  It's the responsibility of a
listed company to provide the services to UL standards.  It's not the
responsibility of UL to inspect every certificated system.  Think of this
in a manufacturing context:  UL doesn't inspect every toaster that comes
off the assembly line.  UL looks at a sample toaster every now and then.
It's the toaster manufacturer's responsibility to keep making products that
meet UL standards.

UL does an initial inspection of an alarm company's work to see whether
it's capable of meeting UL standards.  If so, the company is listed, and
can request a certificate for a particular system.  UL issues the
certificate based on information provided by that company.  Once a year, UL
does a field inspection of a few randomly selected systems to see if they
APPEAR to be installed in accordance with UL standards.  UL does not do a
functional test of every part of the system, and never has.

UL's people are not fire alarm testers, though many of them are more than
qualified to do so.  Their job is to audit the records and to look for
obvious problems with installations.  If one smoke detector has gotten
disconnected, UL isn't going to find it.  That's not their job!

If you think UL should be doing full inspections of every certificated
system, think how many UL inspectors there would have to be, and think of
the cost to the alarm company and its subscribers.  Think how many ADT
systems alone would need inspections.

It's the installing company's responsibility to put in compliant systems.
The certificate is the alarm company's representation that the system and
the service it provides meets UL standards.  The alarm company's
representation, not UL's.


>I wonder if the insurance companies really know that only 3-10% of the
>required systems are actually being inspected. They are not dumb enough to
>accept a piece of paper (certificate) recieved by faxing in an application
>and paying a fee in lieu of an actual onsite inspection to verify the
>coverage.

Of course they know.  UL's certificate program has existed for 75 years,
dating back to the days when UL was essentially an arm of the insurance
industry.  It isn't rocket science to figure this stuff out:  when you have
tens of thousands of certificates and only a handful of UL inspectors, it
doesn't take much brain power to figure out they can't be inspecting every
system.

And yes, the insurance industry IS "dumb enough" to accept that piece of
paper.  If they really wanted each system inspected, there would be no need
for a certificate program:  they'd just require an actual inspection report
on each system.


UL probably claims that they are not inspecting fire alarm systems, but
merely observing the people who do.   That, and auditing central station
records and records of fire tests.  If those activities fit the definition
of a fire alarm company under Florida law, so be it, but it does sound like
the kind of thing the lawyers will argue about.

I do like the idea of making the UL company inspection results public.  UL
has never done this in the past because the alarm company is paying for
that inspection, and could reasonably expect UL to keep the results
confidential so as not to give that company's competitors ammunition.  But
if the law mandates disclosure, then every alarm company will be in the
same boat, and the public interest will be served.

- badenov