Jim Roberts
Technical Committee Member
Jim Roberts, PE, is a lifelong engineer, educator, and standards leader whose career has spanned aerospace manufacturing, state fire safety oversight, and technical training. A dedicated contributor to UL Standards & Engagement for more than 25 years, Jim has served on dozens of Technical Committees, held leadership roles in the National Fire Protection Association, and spent over three decades on the UL Fire Council. His commitment to safety, reliability, and standards development continues today through his ongoing involvement with ULSE and the next generation of safety professionals.
Q: What initially motivated you to get involved with ULSE standards development as a technical committee member? Was there anything particularly unique about the ULSE standards experience that sticks out for you?
A: I already had two decades of heavy involvement with NFPA standards and knew the relationship between NFPA and UL standards for safety, so it was a natural extension of that to get involved and make contributions. UL always had representation on the NFPA committees. I already knew it had a very high reputation, but working with the UL representatives, seeing how they worked, what they brought to the committees, gave me a very good impression about the organization, its personnel, and how it functioned.
The fact that ULSE standards are consensus standards is also very important — and the fact that they are accredited by the American National Standards Institute, as well as the Standards Council of Canada, which makes binational standards possible.
Q: Is there a particular ULSE standards development moment or project in your 25+ years that you’re especially proud of? What made it meaningful?
A: The UL 217/UL 268 TC for smoke alarms and detectors is certainly one of the most impactful. The effort to improve performance in detecting burning plastics, and reducing nuisance alarms from cooking activities, was very meaningful.
25 years ago, with CSDS in place, the fire community recognized that modern homes contained a lot of plastics, with polyurethane in beds and furniture, and synthetic building materials, floor coverings, and furnishings, etc. Fires involving such materials grew at an astounding rate and, as a result, smoke detection may not respond in time for safe escape. Concurrently, nuisance alarms from cooking fumes were seen as another serious challenge to be addressed because they were causing people to disable their smoke alarms. The TC worked with UL researchers and others to develop new fire tests — a complex effort that took years but did result in significant advances in smoke alarm/detector response. All the TC members who participated deserve credit for what was accomplished. The results, over time, should be reflected in fewer fire loss deaths.
Q: What’s something consumers should know about smoke alarms?
A: The 10-year battery is a huge deal. What many people don’t know is that the 9V battery powered smoke alarms require battery brands recommended by the manufacturer — you’ll see it in fine print on the unit, but many people don’t look. And if you’re not using a compatible battery, they can die without warning because their internal resistance builds up and somehow the chirp you get for low battery does not occur. That’s why the 10-year battery is such a breakthrough. They run for 10 years, and they are going to chirp when it’s time to replace them.
Q: Why is carbon monoxide protection such an important safety issue, and how can standards development help address that risk?
Carbon monoxide has been called the “silent killer” and is a threat that can develop slowly from something like a deteriorating furnace liner, or more rapidly due to unsafe homeowner action such as running a generator in the garage. Most people understand the threat posed by fire and smoke but know less about CO and its sources. Fortunately, the technology of CO alarms has advanced substantially, and UL 2034 has evolved to reflect innovative designs including some with 10-year battery power, combination smoke and CO alarms, and models with voice alert and/or digital readout.
Sadly, some CO alarms lacking third-party testing or certification (to any standard) are being sold at familiar on-line sites. Consumers need to be educated on the sources and hazards of CO, as well as the importance of making sure their CO alarms are third-party tested and labeled. Look for a label that says it was tested to UL 2034 by a nationally recognized testing lab. Look for the pedigree.
“Consumers need to be educated on the sources and hazards of CO, as well as the importance of making sure their CO alarms are third-party tested and labeled. Look for a label that says it was tested to UL 2034 by a nationally recognized testing lab. Look for the pedigree.”
Q: What’s the most important thing consumers need to understand about carbon monoxide?
A: It sneaks up on you. If you don’t have a smoke detector, there’s a good chance you’ll smell smoke or see something. With CO, you’re not going to have that. You might have a headache, but you might not know it’s CO poisoning. And next thing you know, you’re disabled and in serious trouble.
Generators are a real hazard — people putting them in garages. Fireplaces, too, especially those with unvented gas logs. Some hybrid cars could also be a hazard because if you don’t turn off the hybrid when you back in the garage, you may put it in park and forget it’s still on because the engine is not currently running. As time goes on, that engine is going to start to keep the battery from dying. So, you could potentially have a hybrid car in a garage running off and on for days and not know it.
Q: What have you learned about building consensus while collaborating in committee meetings and discussions? Especially when the group has competing priorities in the room.
A: You have to find a balance. And as with any negotiation, you have to find the things you agree on. You have to find some common ground and work from there. It’s an interesting process. It really is. And you do see competing interests, but I think truly, everybody on the committee is committed to a safer world and to advance the technology, but they just don’t want to do it at the expense of their product. Generally, we’ve been able to find a path that everybody can live with that both moves the standard forward and doesn’t leave any ships behind.
Q: You have worked with hundreds of other voluntary contributors over the years. What qualities do the most effective contributors tend to share?
A: People who are just natural problem solvers make the best members because they tend to be those who can get through the weeds to a solution, find common ground, and keep an open mind. They make all the other participants feel like their viewpoints are being considered and appreciated. I think the fact that there are such diverse viewpoints on the committee is good. Nothing gets overlooked. Having balance is very necessary so that when you get your consensus, it’s the right one.
Q: What advice would you give to someone that has an interest in standards, or who is thinking about joining a ULSE technical committee for the first time?
“If contributing to a safer world sounds appealing, if you form opinions and make decisions based on facts, and you collaborate well with others in addressing problems, then jump right in and volunteer!”
A: If contributing to a safer world sounds appealing, if you form opinions and make decisions based on facts, and you collaborate well with others in addressing problems, then jump right in and volunteer! It’s personally very satisfying work — both important and worthwhile. We’re always on the lookout for such individuals, particularly those who would also help achieve or maintain TC balance.
You don’t have to be a pedigreed “expert” to participate. Having expertise is always a plus, but a healthy interest in the subject, even just as a consumer, can help the TC.
Q: What do you think people misunderstand most about standards and the role they play in everyday life?
A: I think for most consumers, standards are sort of out of sight, out of mind. They recognize the UL Mark, but they haven’t any concept at all of what’s in UL 217 or UL 268 or the process that created them. A lot of them, as I mentioned, think that standards come from high in the government and then we’re stuck with them. In reality, they come kind of from the ground up — from the wide variety of stakeholders coming together to develop the standards.
Q: After more than 25 years, you’re still an active member! What keeps you excited and engaged in this work as you continue teaching and consulting? What is the primary driving reason that has kept you motivated to continue to give standards development your time as a volunteer?
A: There are multiple reasons:
- The desire to contribute whatever I can from decades of experience.
- Knowing that my efforts can help make a difference.
- The personal satisfaction of still being very active and relevant in my 9th decade!
- Staying busy, especially technical activity, helps keep old brain cells happy.
Q: What are three words you would use to describe your experience with ULSE standards development over the years.
A: Worthwhile. Rewarding. Evolving.
And by the way, I’ve got a ballot in my inbox now. Just by coincidence, I’ve got some homework to do through CSDS in the new portal.
