Hello Richard, I do think that you are going to far in drawing conclusions.
The requirements in the safety directive and safety standards under the LVD are concerned with dangers (hazards) some equipment may *create* for it's operators (and others...) by using it. The generic safety standard nor any safety standard is concerned by dangers the equipment might present by not operating as presumed. I sensed the latter in your conclusions. Said another way (like they do in insurances) dangers that are a direct cause of using the equipment, and not the indirect (consequently ?) dangers are covered. The danger by not operating as presumed is the same as not having the equipment at all. We can hardly say that is a danger caused by using the equipment. The EMC directive itself, by means of fa and especially the EN 50130-4 does present functional demands however. In general all criteria in all immunity standards are concerned with maintaining a minimum level of operation. I would not be very opposite if such conditions were added to safety standards, as your customer relies on the equipment to detect any dangerous situation (fire , burglar etc) and a non-functional equipment is probably more dangerous (though possibly not to the operator :<), then no equipment at all. I think however, that this kind of standards go beyond the requirements for ce marking, essentially meant to gain access to community markets , not to be concerned about functional quality. I can imagine also that certain organizations are concerned with functionality and may impose such requirements before adding their label of "quality", or even demanding certain performance levels before granting installation. Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing =============================================== Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ =============================================== >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf >>Of [email protected] >>Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 10:27 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: CCTV and Access Control in the EU >> >> >> >>As you may know, there are several CENELEC performance standards for >>components of Alarm Systems and more in the works. For example, >>EN 50132-2-1 >>is for black and white cameras for CCTV surveillance systems for use in >>security applications. The Alarm Systems immunity standard, EN 50130-4, >>makes reference to these component standards, but I never considered >>compliance to the performance standards themselves to be mandatory. That >>view has changed. >> >>Article 2 of the LVD contains a general safety clause which says, " . . . >>equipment may be placed on the market only if . . . . it does >>not endanger >>the safety of persons, domestic animals or property when installed and >>maintained and used in applications for which it was made." On 22-9-1999, >>the performance standard for black and white CCTV cameras was published in >>the Official Journal of the EU (OJ) under the Low Voltage Directive (LVD). >>It now appears that "performance" of Alarm Systems is considered to be a >>safety concern. >> >>I concluded that all of the performance standards for Alarm System >>components will eventually be published in the OJ under the LVD. >> >>Now things get complicated. The LVD applies only to electrical products >>operating above 50VAC or 75VDC. Products operating at 24VAC, for example, >>are not required to comply with the LVD. However, they must >>comply with the >>General Safety Directive which applies to all products unless a specific >>safety directive applies. >> >>The General Safety Directive requires that a safe product "does >>not present >>any risk or only the minimal risks compatible with the product's use, >>considered as acceptable and consistent with a high level of >>protection for >>the safety and health of persons". These words combined with others in the >>directive leaves me with the conclusion that performance of a component of >>an Alarm System is a safety concern. The directive indicates that >>a standard >>may be used to demonstrate compliance. >> >>Do you agree with my analysis? >> >>Richard Woods >> >>------------------------------------------- >>This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety >>Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. >> >>To cancel your subscription, send mail to: >> [email protected] >>with the single line: >> unsubscribe emc-pstc >> >>For help, send mail to the list administrators: >> Jim Bacher: [email protected] >> Michael Garretson: [email protected] >> >>For policy questions, send mail to: >> Richard Nute: [email protected] >> >>
<<attachment: Gert Gremmen.vcf>>
