I presume you have a copy of PD 6608:1997 = CENELEC REPORT R079-001:1996, Guide to achieving compliance with EC directives for alarm systems. (I don't know if a more up-to-date version exists). I bought this document to see what it said about safety, but it just said "EN 60950 shall apply".
I am NOT an EMC expert, so all I can do is quote 2 statements from this document : - "EMC 89/336 Immunity, the product family standard for immunity EN 50130-4 shall be used". "For the time being the Commission did not decide which procedure is applicable accordingly to Article 13.4 of the CPD Directive. In addition to that no Harmonized Standards for components of fire detection and fire alarm systems have been published in the OJ of the EU, neither bodies have been notified to issue European Technical Approvals. Therefore, the CPD is not yet applicable." I don't know if any this helps, or just adds to the confusion !! Regards, John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd., Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2 3XX E-Mail :[email protected] Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289 (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. VoicePlus 6-341-2289. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ing. Gert Gremmen [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: 12 November 1999 08:43 > To: Kevin Harris > Cc: Emc-Pstc > Subject: RE: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive > Importance: High > > > Here Kevin > > The difference is between > > EN 50130-4 for components of .... > EN 54 ... for systems as a whole > > The latter deals with requirements of reliability and safety for the whole > installation > the earlier deals with protection of the frequency spectrum (EMC > directive) > and functional immunity. > > It would have been very nice if the two were made up from the same test > suite with > different criteria. They aren't, partially because different people made > it, > partially because systems are much larger and don't fit into the 130-4 > suite, and partially because the requirements are different. > > There is also difference in enforcement of the two and in compliance > routes > (as you probably noted). > > Regards, > > Gert Gremmen Ing. > > == Ce-test, Qualified testing == > Consultants in EMC, Electrical safety and Telecommunication > Compliance tests for European standards and ce-marking > Member of NEC/IEC voting committee for EMC. > Our Web presence: http://www.cetest.nl > List of current harmonized standards http://www.cetest.nl/emc-harm.htm > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of > Kevin Harris > Sent: woensdag 10 november 1999 18:16 > To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) > Subject: RE: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive > > > Hello All, > > Well judging by the responses I worded my question poorly. I was trying to > avoid specifics because I felt the general case would be more of interest > to > the group at large. So let me restate the problem. > > > Generically > > 1. There is a EMC family product specification for a product published in > the OJ as a method of showing compliance to the EMC directive. > > 2. There is a CENELEC document which is published as a EN which is not > part > of any new approach directive. It contains (among a lot of other things) > EMC > testing clauses. > > 3. CENELEC regulations require national standard organisations to > implement > European standards > > 4.The EMC directive requires member countries to adopt standards published > in the OJ for that directive > > 5.Both CENELEC and the EMC directive require conflicting standards to be > withdrawn. > > 6.The EMC product family standard and the CENELEC standard have EMC tests > and test methods which are at odds with each other. They therefor are > conflicting standards. > > > In my case specifically, > > 1.The products are fire systems or components of fire systems > > 2. The EMC family product spec is EN50130-4 > > 3. The CENELEC document is EN54 (In several parts) which is a performance > standard for Fire detection systems > > So my question would be > > Is there an established procedure for making requests that these groups > harmonise and follow their own regulations? Does one complain to CENELEC, > the European Commission or both or someone else entirely? > > Jon Curtis mentioned in his reply that he thought "attempting to change > the > way CENELEC does business is futile". but I think that still I must try > for > several reasons. > 1. This double testing costs large companies like ourselves tens of > thousands of dollars in added testing cost per year for no particular good > reason. > 2. When it gets down to it, CENELEC actually is responsible for the EMC > document EN 50130-4 as well as the fire standard EN54. If we accept that > groups within the same standards organisation can't harmonise where does > that leave us on global standardisation. > > > BTW For those who think I'm advocating less stringent tests or missing > certain tests that is not my intent. EN50130-4 call out a much more > comprehensive test suite than EN54 and it uses test methods that are newer > than EN54. > > > Best Regards, > > > Kevin Harris > Manager, Approval Services > Digital Security Controls > 3301 Langstaff Road > Concord, Ontario > CANADA > L4K 4L2 > > Tel +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 > Fax +1 905 760 3020 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 9:42 PM > To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail); 'Kevin Harris' > Subject: RE: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive > > > > Kevin, > > I cannot believe that we are all cowards here. However, it may be that > we > are unfamiliar with your subject matter. I, for one, have never heard of > the EMC standard EN50130-4, don't know if it falls under the new approach > EMC Directive or not, and don't know what other EN standards it may be in > conflict with. In other words, I cannot shed light on your subject. I > would not be surprised if many have the same problem. It might help if > you > get a bit more specific here, such as, what are the conflicting EN > standards, and what are the specific conflicting clauses. > > Tania Grant, [email protected] <[email protected]> > Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group > > > ---------- > From: Kevin Harris [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 3:01 PM > To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) > Subject: RE: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive > > > Hello Again Group, > > Well the group's total silence on this point is indeed interesting. Does > nobody know how to proceed or is everyone just keeping their corporate > heads > down :)))) > Please reply offline if you feel uneasy answering this question in a > public > forum. > > > Regards > > Kevin Harris > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Harris [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:38 AM > To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) > Subject: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive > > > > Greetings, > > Is there an established procedure for demanding the withdrawal of EMC > clauses within standards who's primary purpose is industry regulation, not > EMC. In my company's industry there is an established product family > standard for EMC (EN50130-4) but the good people at CENELEC seem to be > ignoring the EMC directive, and have published within the last year or > two, > EN standards which include EMC testing clauses, with methods that are at > odds with the EMC document EN50130-4 published in the OJ. Especially > troubling to me is the fact that all of the test organisations that test > for > the industry regulation specification do not accept either third party or > self declarations that the product is EMC compliant. I do not wish to test > the same product more than once for a single market. What path do you > recommend I follow to demand the repeal of these clauses. > > > Best Regards, > > > Kevin Harris > Manager, Approval Services > Digital Security Controls > 3301 Langstaff Road > Concord, Ontario > CANADA > L4K 4L2 > > Tel +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 > Fax +1 905 760 3020 > > > - > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], or > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], or > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], or > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], or > [email protected] (the list administrators). > --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators).
