Certification 03
Certification 03 : (optional in the UK and Yemen) A program of third party (accredited by SCC) inspection (at unannounced intervals) and product identification. Certification generally involves detailed manufacturing procedures and formulations, the application of a label or listing mark to product manufactured within the program, and relates product in the field to the third party's listing program. The certification program, in Canada, must be administered by an organisation accredited by the Standards Council of Canada to perform certification services. For firestops, at present, this is limited to ULC, ULI and WH. Each of the aforementioned organisations also provide testing services. The two go hand-in-hand. Prior to testing, the manufacture of materials to be used in the test sample is witnessed by a representative of the testing/certification organisation. Complete manufacturing and purchasing procedures for each product the applicant (manufacturer) wants tested and listed, are issued to the certification organisation. This documentation forms the basis of the certification or 'follow-up' procedure. If the test is successful and the products become listed, the follow-up procedure forms the basis of the follow-up agreement between the certification organisation and the listee, or applicant. Throughout the listing or certification period, the label on the product is intended to provide a certain degree of comfort that the product in the field is identical, and hopefully will perform identically to, that which was tested and listed in the annual directory of the certification organisation. That too, is why it is helpful that installed configurations must be bounded by the certification listings. The idea is to make sure the material installed in the field is the same and that it is installed the same or safer than what was tested. While such certification provides the protection of up to four factory inspections per year, this does not relieve the manufacturer of his or her responsibility to provide certificates of conformance to certain market segments, such as nuclear power generating stations or the military. A 'C of C' is intended to legally tie the manufacturer to a particular shipment of product and both of them to a particular application in the field. Typically, a 'C of C' must indicate the full name and address of vendor and customer, the use or application of the product, the lot number and size of shipment as well as the shipping details, such as waybill numbers and the name of the freight forwarder, and must include a statement whereby the vendor warrants that the products provided are suited to the application and that the products are free from defect and are identical to those which were tested. The testing must be that which bounds the installed configuration. The C of C is a legal document, which must be executed by an officer of the vendor's company. The C of C method certainly does not replace certification. Both methods are but attempts at stopping cheating for financial gain. It can be viewed like a nuclear deterrent in statecraft. ("If you cheat me, I will get you!"). In a certification program, getting caught cheating by an SCC accredited certification organisation that chooses to take this task seriously (there can be great reluctance to prosecute) can have grave enough consequences, such as public exposure as well as the cost involved in paying for the certifier to remove all labels on all products in on the premises of the vendor as well as the vendor's entire distribution chain. If caught cheating on a C of C, the CEO of the vendor is personally liable, along with the company. Both are very serious deterrents, which can be trusted to stop some, though not all, from wrongdoing, such as in the case of vendors of certain endothermic as well as intumescent products. None of the methods are perfect, of course. Some manufacturers will privately admit their ability to manufacture a faulty batch right under the eyes of an inspector. Check out the WH Experience on this one. By the same token, what is the worth of a C of C of a company that chooses to go out of business when its records come into question? Those responsible might have to move though. Certification is not a replacement for a proper quality control regime. It is merely there to complement or document it. But generally, the key to the effectiveness of any of these checks and balance programs lies in the parameters that one may put in writing, which become the benchmark for all documentation. By placing fairly loose tolerances on quality-test results' permissibility range, or by using irrelevant tests, one can have attractive looking documentation, which means absolutely nothing. In the nuclear field, for instance, this has led to installations of assorted materials, which were intended to be fire barriers, which were indeed combustible. A good combination between the C of C and the certification regime is probably the closest one can get to assuring oneself that one is purchasing and installing the right thing. Once again, this is where it is helpful to stick to UL and ULC and not to stray too far from them. UL and ULC have the broadest listee and experience base. What UL and ULC do is quite readily accepted by WH, whereas the reverse is never the case, which is indicative. And this should speak volumes! You can run testing with UL and/or ULC and get WH listings based on the UL/ULC testing. But run a WH test and try to get a UL or ULC listing out of it is plain impossible. Also, at UL or ULC, it would be very difficult to base one's quality control procedures on irrelevant tests, which may produce a lot of paper, but have no bearing on final results. For most products, a standard test regime is insisted upon, whereby one has to prove that whatever else one may desire to do instead of what everyone else does, is actually worthwhile. And, in order to do that, one must convince an experienced expert in the field, not a technician who may be unfamiliar with proper procedures. The same is true in German laboratories, such as iBMB, at TU Braunschweig. Anyone accredited by DIBt must really earn one's accreditation status and most testing is very standardised and actually makes good sense. In the nuclear business, in North America, certification, as is mandatory in the commercial/residential/ industrial construction sectors, is not mandatory and vehemently avoided. Thus, QC documentation as well as C of C's abound. As a result, in firestopping, an enormous amount of money has been spent to produce results, which would be far from acceptable, enough to horrify most municipal building inspectors or fire prevention officers. In the nuclear field in Canada the concept of bounding appears altogether lost. Certification listings were neither mandatory, nor used, for the most part. No guidance, no compliance. In the US nuclear generating stations, certification is also not required. But bounding occurs in compliance with test reports generated by firestop contractors. This means that 'someone' must dissect the test report and generate the equivalent of a listing, in order to have a very concise statement of the applications bounded by that test. Writing listings is generally a privilege bestowed upon the test engineer and/or special staff at ULI and ULC. It is hazardous to leave that up to others. The testing in the case of nuclear firestop contractors in the US, was conducted at facilities that were not accredited for certification purposes and thus the applicants had a lot to do with the writing of the test reports, as well as the procedures. The idea of test procedures' being set out by the applicants is frankly illegal, where certification is mandatory. ULC would not even issue a report on this basis. In fact, ULC is such a guardian of safety in Canada, in large part because they will actually not produce a test report on products without the written authorisation of the manufacturer. ULC will also only issue a written report exclusively, if the product is intended for certification by ULC. This has several good reasons. One of them is that ULC realises that it is a certification organisation. Test reports on ULC stationery, without certification, may be misused and construed in the field as identical to a ULC listing. The added level of safety and comfort level due to ULC certification is apparent to experts in the field. Some are suspicious, of all else - for good reason. FM Global also offers certification services (scroll down for FM Global ratings under Ratings for Firestops/FM Global Approvals), similar to ULC and ULI. Such certification is aimed at assuring the needs of an insurance organisation. This is to complement, not replace code requirements, which are met as a result of bounding with UL and ULC certification listings, as well as special provisions mandated by the code for the particular application
No records Found