UL does still charge for their testing standards. Their directories are
free to AHJ's.
Thank You
Rahe Loftin, P.E.
Region 7 - GSA
Office - 817-978-7299
Fax - 817-978-8644
Cell - 817-371-3102
"Joe Hankins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To
ast.net> [email protected]
Sent by: cc
sprinklerforum-bo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
er.org Re: UL vs FM
10/22/2007 09:05
AM
Please respond to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
resprinkler.org
You can find out exactly how a product is tested for Approval at FM by
reading the Approval Standard for the product at:
http://www.fmglobal.com/approvals/resources/standards.asp
I believe UL still charges for their testing standards,
In addition to testing products, Both FM and UL perform regular audits
to attempt to make sure that the product being shipped is the same one
that was tested.
Joe
Reza Esmaeili wrote:
> Thanks all, everyone noted some valuable points, I got the difference
between UL and FM which I list some below some of your nice points:
> UL is is a product safety testing and certification organization
serving insurance industry and "list" items that meet their minimum safety
standards. NFPA requires that the equipments to be tested by a recognized
organization, so UL listed products are accepted by NFPA. FM is a fire
insurance company, when FM insures a project, it has to write a check when
a product does not perform (like sprinkler failure), so FM standards are
usually more than minimum. Unlike FM, UL is not the insured company and
will not write a check if a product does not perform, so UL standard
usually meet the minimum safety requirements. UL mark is enough, but if a
project is going to be insured by FM, then usually FM approved products are
needed. A UL listed product is enough for NFPA, no matter Chinese or
American, however an American UL listed sprinkler may have better quality
than chinese, because American manufacturers have to compete on both cost
and quality. Chinese manufacturers may feel
> they only have to compete on price.
> Thanks for your kind comments, I got the point.
> Reza
>
>
>
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Reza:
>
> You had it right the first time. When a product does not perform, as in a
sprinkler failure, the insured "FM" has to write a check. Therefore they
are more likely to look at other aspects than UL.
>
> Case in point, when UL is asked why they approved a product, that later
failed to function, their PR department started cranking out crap about
"industry standards, and consensus opinion.
>
> Good Luck
>
>
> Joe Manning
>
>
>
> **************************************
> See what's new at http://www.aol.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>
> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
