Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
One-off 'listing in place' for fire marshall — Parallax Forums

One-off 'listing in place' for fire marshall

T ChapT Chap Posts: 4,223
edited 2010-07-10 18:18 in General Discussion
I sold a product to a company building a high end retail store in Vegas. The gadget is rather custom and is not likely available anywhere off the shelf without mods. It is not installed yet, and the general contractor now is requesting UL listing. I am going through the motions with UL but it will be months to get tested and listed. The fire marshall states that due to the application being a fire corridor, that the associated door hardware must be UL. I have spoken to several similar agencies that are quoting 3-5k to sign off on the system, but the contractor doesn't want to eat it and I can't absorb it. For one off gadgets that are somewhat custom, can anyone think of a cheaper work around to pass the fire marshall/inspectors?

Comments

  • stamptrolstamptrol Posts: 1,731
    edited 2010-06-17 19:29
    You're likely in a bit of a bind.

    Other than the certification labs, the only other lower cost avenue I've used is to have a shop with an existing UL licence assemble it under a "certified parts" process. What that means is the components and their individual approval numbers are documented and the shop puts them together as an "assembly" and approves the assembly. Its used mainly for electronic controls so may not be too helpful for you.
    A long shot is to seek "special approval" for this one installation from the fire marshall. Unfortunately, many do not feel comfortable doing this for a technical device they're unfamiliar with.

    Is there any chance you can see several more units in the future? That way you could possibly get permission for the device to stay installed untill you go through the lab for approval on the future units. Obviously, your price on the future units will be significantly higher to cover your costs!

    Cheers,

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Tom Sisk

    http://www.siskconsult.com
    ·
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2010-06-18 03:09
    You should be able to have an inspector perform some basic testing (hi-pot, leakage current, flammability, etc.) on the individual unit and provide a sticker for a lot less than 5K. Not sure what the US equivalent is, but we had systems CSA approved in Canada that were shipped to the US under some reciprocal agreement with UL. Only problem is every unit needs to be inspected.
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2010-06-18 03:30
    Todd Chapmann said...
    The fire marshall states that due to the application being a fire corridor, that the associated door hardware must be UL.
    Given the venue, are you sure this isn't just some kind of shakedown? 'Just sayin'...

    -Phil
  • Alan BradfordAlan Bradford Posts: 172
    edited 2010-06-18 03:33
    It would be easier to help if we knew what the widget is and what it does.
    Could it be made of compliant UL hardware, with your custom controls?

    Sometimes you can become compliant by using a UL power supply and keep all your stuff below 27 Volts DC
    The Fire Marshal may not know anything other than it needs the UL Sticker, so he may not be much help.
    Unfortunately lots (not all) of them know what is and is not code but not why. They memorize the manual.

    You say the contractor does not want to absorb the cost, but did he request UL compliance with the origanal contract?
    If not and he is changing the scope of the project 'to comply with the Fire Marshal' then he is the one to pay for the change.
    I write that into all my retrofit and rebuilding contracts.

    Good Luck

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Alan Bradford ·N1YMQ

    Plasma Technologies
    Canaan NH 03741
    www.plasmatechnologies.com
  • FranklinFranklin Posts: 4,747
    edited 2010-06-18 03:59
    If the application has to do with life safety you probably will have to get it certified but you don't give enough information to have a valid opinion on your options.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    - Stephen
  • T ChapT Chap Posts: 4,223
    edited 2010-06-18 04:13
    This particular gadget is a motorized track system which causes a sliding door to open in the event of a fire alarm on a room with no other egress. The fire marshal made a special request that the door be connected to the alarm. The fire marshal and general contractors are just going by the book. In speaking with the fire marshal in Vegas, he stated that it was not entirely that the device was capable of producing fire, but that the device was reliable to handle the task of opening the door, so it is 'operationally' an issue. As far as the contractor requesting UL, no that was not discussed, but was assumed on their part. They agreed to absorb some expense, so I am seeing what options exist. The thing is if I attempt to skate by without some true inspection and certification, there is the potential liability to consider. Not a big deal, the worst case is I have to issue a refund and pass on the project.
  • edited 2010-06-18 12:26
    Alan Bradford said...


    Unfortunately lots (not all) of them know what is and is not code but not why. They memorize the manual.
    We were visited by the Fire Marshall at our company and we had to buy the 2009 International Fire Code.· The city I work in·is still using the 2007 Fire Codes.

    The inspector said no one can know the whole code.

    The voice of reason should win that says, "Do what they say" because in reality·companies and contractors·can fight these things all·they want but·the fire marhsall's / inspector's·position gives them the authority to regulate people all they want.· And when they make multiple visits, they can charge the company and write up more violations.



    ·
  • ElectricAyeElectricAye Posts: 4,561
    edited 2010-06-18 13:18
    Todd Chapman said...
    .... he stated that it was not entirely that the device was capable of producing fire, but that the device was reliable to handle the task of opening the door, so it is 'operationally' an issue. ....

    I'm guessing the Marshall's biggest concern would be that the door would not open in the event of an emergency, especially a power outage and fire, which is a valid concern. Of course, the nightmare scenario would be the front page newspaper photo of charred polyester-clad bodies, melted poker chips in hand, stacked against that particular door. The Marshall is probably not so concerned with your device catching fire.

    One possible workaround is to find out what is allowed on a regular egress door. I'm guessing if there is some way for a person to break a glass or flip aside a red panel and pull a lever and thus enable that person to slide the egress door MANUALLY, then you would be able to satisfy the fire code. You know, lots of places have forbidden doors that can be used as exits only during emergencies - but if somebody passes through that door for any reason. then an alarm will sound. The psychological barrier is the breaking of the glass or flipping of a red panel to reach a lever. This keeps the bad guys from slipping into areas they are normally not allowed to enter. But if you can think of a manual over-ride to your system, perhaps some MECHANICAL way to disengage the motorized drive system, I bet you could still keep your motorized door system (arguing it's for little old blind ladies in wheelchairs who need to escape the burning strip joint) and keep the Marshall happy. It might be a matter of reading through the code or consulting a fire inspector to find out what makes a system legal.

    When it comes to dealing with emergency codes, I'm guessing your best bet is to always have a system in place that allows humans to clear their way to safety under their own power. It's a KISS concept, no doubt. Despite all of your efforts, however, the Marshall might still insist on some kind of UL label just so there's evidence that your system won't jam when sprinklers are running, maintains reliability over a given lifetime, needs an inspection schedule that is not unreasonable or impossible to perform, etc.

    good luck,
    Mark
  • edited 2010-06-18 13:24
    ElectricAye said...
    Todd Chapman said...
    .... he stated that it was not entirely that the device was capable of producing fire, but that the device was reliable to handle the task of opening the door, so it is 'operationally' an issue. ....

    I'm guessing the Marshall's biggest concern would be that the door would not open in the event of an emergency, especially a power outage and fire, which is a valid concern. Of course, the nightmare scenario would be the front page newspaper photo of charred polyester-clad bodies, melted poker chips in hand, stacked against that particular door. The Marshall is probably not so concerned with your device catching fire.

    One possible workaround is to find out what is allowed on a regular egress door. I'm guessing if there is some way for a person to break a glass or flip aside a red panel and pull a lever and thus enable that person to slide the egress door MANUALLY, then you would be able to satisfy the fire code. You know, lots of places have
    They still might need the door to open for the handicapped but it depends upon their rules and not what I think.· You would think they would want you to close the door to cut off oxygen to a fire but common sense doesn't always win out and rightfully so because they're probably more worried about evacuation and getting people out.
    ·
  • Alan BradfordAlan Bradford Posts: 172
    edited 2010-06-18 13:39
    I agree that the codes are vast, and I was not trying to say you could
    negotiate with them.
    They will stick by the letter of the regulation, weather they know why or not.
    Remember the Titanic adheared to the codes of her time too.

    So we are not looking to get around the code, but the most cost effective way to conform to the code.

    The last place I worked, had one engineer who was on the NFPA code board, or whatever they call the guys who write the codes.
    He said they would spend weeks debating to use words like: 'If' or 'Or' in a regulation.
    Not to be safer, but to be interperted only one way.

    Anyway thats why we have to work with them.
    The inspectors·have the last say,because they have to sign off on the project.

    Thanks,

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Alan Bradford ·N1YMQ

    Plasma Technologies
    Canaan NH 03741
    www.plasmatechnologies.com
  • bill190bill190 Posts: 769
    edited 2010-06-18 15:40
    Many moons ago I worked on fire alarm systems. I don't recall *anything* in these systems which was not U.L. listed. (Including the wire run in the buildings for these systems.)

    Even a simple fire alarm "pull station" had to be U.L. listed. That is just a simple on/off locking switch.

    And all of these systems monitored everything for a "trouble situation". If a wire was cut for example, the system would detect this and send a "trouble signal". The wiring was many times monitored with an "end of line resistor".

    If there was a short or open on the wiring, the system would know there was a problem with the wiring. (200 ohms to 1K.)

    There is a "Usenet" group (alt.security.alarms) of alarm company types who sell, install, and repair these systems. They can be a bit snippy at times, but may be of some help?
    (This group can also be accessed via "google groups" alt.security.alarms)
    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.security.alarms/topics?lnk=rgh

    Usenet...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

    As to "fire department officials", my experience has been that they are not always the "brightest tools in the shed" so to say.
    ·
  • T ChapT Chap Posts: 4,223
    edited 2010-06-18 15:49
    Somebody said...
    and thus enable that person to slide the egress door MANUALLY, then you would be able to satisfy the fire code.

    Actually, the door is ALWAYS manually operated and operational by a large handle. The only single case it ever gets electronically moved is if the the door is in a closed position, and there is an alarm, otherwise the motor is completely passive at all times freewheeling. Thanks for the other ideas.
  • John R.John R. Posts: 1,376
    edited 2010-06-18 16:14
    Liability wise, you are most likely now caught in the pickle. Even if you find a way around UL listing, you were asked to do it, didn't and if something ever happens, you're in deep water.

    If you sold this from a propriatorship or partnership, your personal assets are at risk. If you sold it from a "company" with a formal structured, recognized by the state(s) you sell from/to, your fall back position _might_ be "let them sue the company, and it will go under, they can have the assets".

    If you don't go through with UL listing, at a minimum, lunch and/or a brief visit with your/an attorney may be in order.

    As a wise engineer taught me early on, there is no word with the base "safe" in it that will not lead to potential problems.

    There is a reason that this type of thing, that seems so simple, also seem to be overpriced. You need to cover the testing costs, as well as liability insurance.

    I am not a lawyer. This could be serious enough (even if you wanted to "refund and walk away" you may have problems) that you may want to see one.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    John R.
    Click here to see my Nomad Build Log
  • T ChapT Chap Posts: 4,223
    edited 2010-06-18 17:40
    I just spoke with someone at a Nationally Recognized Test Lab (NRTL) that quoted 1k to do the field eval and put on a NRTL sticker. They can do it within a week of setting up the evaluation. The company is called MET Labs. I will run the option by the fire marshall and contractor and see if it flies.
  • ercoerco Posts: 20,260
    edited 2010-06-18 19:48
    @Todd: As interesting as this discussion is, and as helpful as people are trying to be, it may·not be in your best interest to continue it. Every word of this online discussion·and any emails you send about this high-liability subject·are potentially damaging to you should the worst happen. As Toyota recently found out, it's all evidence to be used against you in a lawsuit. Any hinting·of known weaknesses, doubts·about the system's long-term reliability, an "I don't want to pay" attitude, or looking for a cheaper workaround to standard UL certification would look very bad in court.

    It is infinitely preferable and safer to have private conversations with informed individuals in person that are known to not be recorded. I'm not paranoid, what I've described is standard policy at big companies. This forum is a great place to connect with some smart people, but you might consider talking with them on the phone rather than continuing to update this thread. FYI.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    ·"If you build it, they will come."
  • tperkinstperkins Posts: 98
    edited 2010-07-10 04:28
    @John R. who wrote, "you were asked to do it,"

    No he was not. The contractor assumed that it would be UL without specifying it. The onus is entirely on the contractor.
  • T ChapT Chap Posts: 4,223
    edited 2010-07-10 05:18
    I have quite a few hours now into UL emails/conversations pursuing several UL listings. I have learned a great deal since this post. Regardless of whether the contractor assumes anything or not, if a fire marshall is really doing his job, he is going to be aware of the various listing categories. There is usually not a one shoe fits all UL listing. After lots of back and forth, UL and I have arrived at a particular listing that will include what is called a complimentary listing of another category. So that, in certain instances, with certain required installation instructions my system will meet a particularly stringent listing requirement to suit commercial fire rated corridors. Then, in other installations, the complimentary listing will apply. The thing about highly customized products is, that it would be rare that you build anything from scratch that is already UL listed. Which then means you options are to wait 10 weeks to get it tested by UL (or other), or you can call a UL competitor (Nationally Recognized Test Lab) that can fly in and 'sticker' your device if it meets the standard. Else they give you a report with required corrections to make.
  • Jerry ElyaJerry Elya Posts: 16
    edited 2010-07-10 16:30
    An attorney's job, put simply, is to keep telling the client, "Shut up and let me do all the talking".

    But I am wondering why a sliding door was allowed in a fire corridor in the first place. My prior employer was a very safety-conscious outfit (think what you want about their motivation), but every single sliding and roll-up door, and the place had hundreds over 30+ acres of facility, had a standard door with crash doors, lit signs and even imbedded floor LEDs right next to it.
  • John R.John R. Posts: 1,376
    edited 2010-07-10 16:40
    tperkins said...
    @John R. who wrote, "you were asked to do it,"

    No he was not. The contractor assumed that it would be UL without specifying it. The onus is entirely on the contractor.

    If only it were that simple. This gets into that wonderful are of "what is a reasonable expectation". It is possible (possibly likely) that it would be considered safe to assume that all parties understand and are aware of code requirements.

    These types of situations can, and have, gotten ugly all over the country. The only "good" resolution is if the parties can find a way to all work together to find a resolution. If things get "ugly" (i.e. lawsuits), then you get into the old "was a UL listing in the contract" vs. "was a 'not' UL listing in the contract", and what is the "reasonable expectation" by someone familiar/competent/regularly doing business/etc in the field".

    Just because something is not specifically mentioned in a contract, does not always mean you are "exempt" from this type of requirement. In a previous life, we routinely included a phrase something along the lines of "This product is commercial quality and carries no other certification, and is not manufactured to any military or other specifications". That isn't quite the right wording, but you get the idea.

    T Chap: I hope you, the contractor, building owner and inspector all find a workable solution! Let us know how it turns out, and if (and how) you managed to share the costs.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    John R.
    Click here to see my Nomad Build Log
  • T ChapT Chap Posts: 4,223
    edited 2010-07-10 18:18
    I don't want to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't put time and energy into as far as posting opinions or suggestions, but all the aforementioned legal references are a little dramatic in this case, as my original system overview documents sent to the contractor and mill worker clearly stated that my system was not UL listed. I was never asking legal advice, but rather trying to see if anyone knew a good solution for an 'on site' certification which is a very common practice, and is now being handled. There is no detailed contract, simply an invoice that reflects the hardware being sold and a payment.

    Post Edited (T Chap) : 7/10/2010 6:25:40 PM GMT
Sign In or Register to comment.