Laser Safety Standards through the years

If you are a laser user, or a machine design­er who inte­grates lasers into machin­ery, you should read this arti­cle from Pho­ton­ics that gives a good overview of glob­al laser safe­ty stan­dards.

Laser Safe­ty Stan­dards Through the Years

If you are a laser user, or a machine design­er who inte­grates lasers into machin­ery, you should read this arti­cle from Pho­ton­ics that gives a good overview of glob­al laser safe­ty stan­dards.

Laser Safe­ty Stan­dards Through the Years

EN ISO 13849–1 Mandatory Implementation Date CONFIRMED!

The Euro­pean Com­mis­sion con­firms the manda­to­ry imple­men­ta­tion date for EN ISO 13849–1:2008 in the Offi­cial Jour­nal of the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion.

This morn­ing the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion con­firmed the state­ment made by Marie Poidevin of CEN last week by pub­lish­ing s revised list of stan­dards (2009/C 321/09) includ­ing EN 954–1:1996, EN ISO 13849–1:2006 and EN ISO 13849–1:2008, not­ing “The date of ces­sa­tion of pre­sump­tion of con­for­mi­ty of the super­seded stan­dard, ini­tial­ly fixed on 28.12.2009, has been post­poned for two years.”

Machine builders who have been putting off imple­men­ta­tion of this stan­dard in their designs have now gained anoth­er two years to edu­cate them­selves and to update their design process­es to include the addi­tion­al analy­sis required.

Com­ing on the manda­to­ry imple­men­ta­tion date of the lat­est revi­sion of the Machin­ery Direc­tive, which now explic­it­ly requires risk assess­ment to be com­plet­ed as part of the design process, and new rules that will bring in prod­ucts that were incor­rect­ly being marked exclu­sive­ly under the Low Volt­age Direc­tive, the next two years will be busy ones for those com­pa­nies who have not been pay­ing much atten­tion to the changes in this impor­tant direc­tive.

Com­pa­nies who are well pre­pared and were ready for the orig­i­nal date are ahead of the mar­ket and should take this oppor­tu­ni­ty to take some gains over the­or com­peti­tors by adver­tis­ing their abil­i­ty to pro­duce com­pli­ant machin­ery.

Today’s edi­tion of the OJ also brought in a cou­ple of stan­dards pre­vi­ous­ly noti­fied under the old Machin­ery Direc­tive, but there are many oth­ers that remain to be noti­fied. Most of these are pend­ing updates to bring them into con­for­mi­ty with the revised Essen­tial Require­ments, while some may be replaced by new ISO adop­tions of their con­tent with new mate­r­i­al added.

On the EMC-PSTC email forum, a cou­ple of ques­tions were posed that will like­ly be on the minds of many read­ers. For those who don’t know, Type C stan­dards are “prod­uct fam­i­ly” stan­dards that cov­er a spe­cif­ic type of machin­ery, like lifts, or pow­er press­es. :

What if a Type C stan­dard ref­er­ences only EN ISO 13849–1?

Would it be OK to claim pre­sump­tion of con­for­mi­ty using such a har­mo­nized type C stan­dard yet only using EN 954–1 for the con­trol cir­cuits?

If your machine is in the scope of a spe­cif­ic har­mo­nized stan­dard, do you have to use it, rather than gener­ics?

I’d like to address these ques­tions in this post, so here goes…

If you are declar­ing con­for­mi­ty to a Type C stan­dard, and that stan­dard calls out EN ISO 13849–1 for con­trol reli­a­bil­i­ty, then in my opin­ion you should be using that stan­dard UNLESS there is some over­rid­ing rea­son that pre­vents you from using it. “We didn’t feel like it” or “It’s too hard” don’t count. If you’re in a posi­tion where you must con­tin­ue to use EN 954–1, then ratio­nale must be writ­ten for the tech­ni­cal file that clear­ly describes the rea­sons pre­vent­ing the imple­men­ta­tion of the new stan­dard, and fur­ther­more, what has been done to pro­vide an equiv­a­lent lev­el of safe­ty and reli­a­bil­i­ty as would be gained by using the new stan­dard.

If your machine is in the scope of a spe­cif­ic har­mo­nized stan­dard, then it should be declared using that stan­dard and not the gener­ics. This is dis­cussed in the guid­ance doc­u­ments for the direc­tive. The gener­ic stan­dards are there to be used for prod­ucts that are not with­in the scope of exist­ing har­mo­nized stan­dards, and for the guid­ance of Tech­ni­cal Com­mit­tees writ­ing Type C stan­dards. The Type C stan­dard will give the user a spe­cif­ic list of com­mon haz­ards found on the type of machin­ery cov­ered by the stan­dard, and will pro­vide spe­cif­ic con­trol mea­sures that are expect­ed to be used to con­trol the risks asso­ci­at­ed with those haz­ards. If there are haz­ards that are not cov­ered by the stan­dard, then gener­ic stan­dards may be used to deal with the risks relat­ed to that unique haz­ard.

Need more infor­ma­tion? Feel free to con­tact me offline to dis­cuss your appli­ca­tion!

Update on EN ISO 13849–1 Mandatory Implementation Date

The machin­ery world con­tin­ues to wait for the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion to reveal the new Manda­to­ry Imple­men­ta­tion Date for EN ISO 13849–1.

The Euro­pean Com­mis­sion pub­lished a new Com­mu­ni­ca­tion relat­ing to the Machin­ery Direc­tive this past Fri­day that con­tin­ues the silence from the EC on the manda­to­ry imple­men­ta­tion date for EN ISO 13849–1. Com­mu­ni­ca­tion C 309/29, the lat­est update to the list of stan­dards har­mo­nized under the Machin­ery Direc­tive, indi­cates that EN ISO 13849–1 and -2 were noti­fied in the 8-Sep-09 Com­mu­ni­ca­tion, but fails to pro­vide a date for the ces­sa­tion of pre­sump­tion of con­for­mi­ty under the old stan­dard, EN 954–1 / ISO 13849–1 1999. EN 954–1 is not list­ed in the cur­rent doc­u­ment.

MachineBuilding.net is report­ing that Marie Poidevin from CEN has stat­ed that the pre­sump­tion of con­for­mi­ty under EN 954–1 has been extend­ed to 31-Dec-2011. Expec­ta­tions are that an updat­ed list will be pub­lished this week includ­ing a new ref­er­ence to EN 954–1 with the new Manda­to­ry Imple­men­ta­tion date.

I con­tin­ue to watch this sto­ry and will update you as new infor­ma­tion is avail­able.