Product Safety Newsletter 88V01N9...Bell, Annie Valva and Jodi Elgin of Tandom Computers for their work in preparing this newsletter. Editor Roger Volgstadt News Editor David Edmunds

Product Safety Newsletter • Page 1

TheProductSafetyNewsletterVol 1, No 9 November-December 1988

Chairman’s Message

Continued on page 2

In this issue Page

Chairman's Message Richard Pescatore 1

Technically Speaking Rich Nute 2

Hierarchy of Safety Standards Peter Perkins 3

Editorial Roger Volgstadt 4

News and Notes 5

Ask Doctor Z Doctor Z 6

Area Activity Reports 13

Membership Questionaire 16

Officers and Committees 19

Calendar Back Cover

In a previous newsletter, I men-tioned that we are working withthe IEEE EMC Society to developthe details of our organizationalstructure and formalize our state-ment of scope. Work in both ofthese areas is continuing. At thispoint, a draft of our scope, astatement of technical competence(identifying our areas of exper-tise), and an organizational charthave been prepared. By the timeyou read this, all of these itemsshould be finalized and ready forpublication in the next newsletter.(It’s still early October as I preparethis message.)

The thrust of our originalcharter, to advance the knowledgeand awareness of product safety ofelectronic products, will notchange. We are still dedicated tothis philosophy. The statement oftechnical competence will alsoreflect this thought.

An organization chart depictingour structure and relationship to

the EMC Society and IEEE isshown on the following page. Weare presently identifying the offi-cers and functional chairmen atthe national level. Your areachairmen are doing the same atthe local level.

Thus far, we have identified thefollowing positions and volunteersto fill those positions:

National Officers:ChairmanRichard PescatoreVice ChairmanJim NorgaardSecretary/TreasurerJohn McBain

Functional Positions:Newsletter EditorRoger VolgstadtPaper Review ChairmanMike HarrisSymposium Liaison ChairmanTBDSymposium Liaison ChairmanTBD

As you can see, we still needvolunteers to help with some ofthe Technical Committee func-tions. These positions are criticalto the success of our organization.We also need people to help ineach area. Please let one of theofficers know which functionalarea you would like to help withor chair. Their addresses andphone numbers are given on page19 of this newsletter.

The success of this TechnicalCommittee depends on you. Inaddition to organizing the func-tions mentioned above, we wanttechnical papers to publish. Thesepapers can take on one of severalforms: abstracts, transactions,letters to the editor of the “IEEETransactions,” short papers, longpapers, etc. Also, we anticipatethat we will be able to have papersand tutorials presented at futureEMC Society Symposiums.


TheProductSafetyNewsletter

The Product SafetyNewsletter is publishedbimonthly by the ProductSafety Technical Committeeof the IEEE EMC Society.No part of this newslettermay be reproduced withoutwritten permission of theauthors. All rights to thearticles remain with theauthors. Opinions expressedin this newsletter are thoseof the authors and do notnecessarily represent theopinions of the TechnicalCommittee or its members.Comments and questionsabout the newsletter maybe addressed to:Product Safety Newsletter,Roger Volgstadt c/oTandem Computers, 2550Walsh Ave., Santa Clara,CA 95051-1392, Fax No.(408) 748-2137

This newsletter isprepared by the CorporateGraphics Group of TandemComputers Incorporated.The editor wishes to extenda special tahnks to MelanieBell, Annie Valva and JodiElgin of Tandom Computersfor their work in preparingthis newsletter.

EditorRoger VolgstadtNews EditorDavid EdmundsTechnical EditorJohn Reynolds

I hope that this article brings youup to date regarding our progress ofaffiliation with the IEEE. Unfortu-nately, space does not permit amore detailed report. However, ifyou have any questions, please feelfree to contact me.

Any thoughts or ideas that youmight have are always welcome.

Have a Happy Thanksgivingand Holiday Season.

Rich Pescatore, Chairman

Vol. 1, N0. 9 November/December 1988

Chairman's Messagecontinued


Hello from Vancouver, USA.One of my colleagues has a

desk drawer full of I/O boards thathave been burned quite severely.Why did they burn? The I/Oboards are in energy-limitedSELV circuits. There should be nopossibility of fire.

When we closely examine theboards, we find that the groundtrace from the I/O connector is thetrace that was overheated. It canonly overheat when it conductslots of amps. But, we all knowthat the ground is not a current-carrying conductor. At least, it isnot a current-carrying conductorunder normal conditions.

How can the trace overheatwhen there is no current?

There must have been a faultcondition. Can we determine whatit was?

When we check out the circuitwith an ohmmeter and a voltme-ter, we find everything is okay:zero ohms, and zero volts.

My colleague performed thetraditional grounding continuitytest using a 30-amp source. Itpassed.

Well, my colleague went a stepfurther. He attempted to duplicatethe failure with a new board. Hekept cranking up the current untilthe board burned just as hisdrawerful of boards. It took 100amps!

There is no way to get 100amps through a 120 volt cord-connected product on a 20 ampbranch circuit.

The board did burn. It did take100 amps to bum the board.Those 100 amps had to comefrom somewhere.

Before we explore this, let’sturn to a different phenomenon.

Have you ever measured thepotential difference between theneutral and the ground? Youprobably measured a couple ofvolts.

To get a few volts potentialdifference, there must be a fewamps of current passing through aresistance, somewhere.

Since the ground has no cur-rent, the current must be in theneutral. When we make thismeasurement, the ground wireacts as a remote contact to the endof the neutral wire. So, we aremeasuring the voltage drop acrosssome portion of the neutralconductor.

Now, let’s return to the originalissue: How can current get intothe ground under normal condi-tions? Normal conditions are theonly conditions in which we canget continuous current in theground conductor.

The answer is found inthe National Electrical CodeHandbook.

One neutral may be grounded atmore than one point! See Figures250- 7 and 250-8 (pages 193 and194 of the 1987 Handbook) andFigures 1 & 2 on the next page.

What does this mean?If the neutral is connected toground at more than one point,then the neutral and ground areconnected in parallel betweenthose two points. In accordancewith Kirchoff’s laws, such connec-tion makes the ground a current-carrying conductor under normalconditions!

What does this mean for the 1/0board?The I/O includes a signal ground.When the I/O is connected toanother piece of equipment whichis grounded at another location,then the signal ground wire,because it is grounded at twopoints, parallels the ground andneutral wire!

Thus, the neutral current getsdivided into three paths: theneutral wire, the ground wire,AND the signal ground! VOILA!Lots of amps in the signal groundwire! The I*I*R causes the traceson the boards to bum.

Depending on the distributiontransformer size, the distance

Technically SpeakingRich Nute

The Hazards of MultipleGrounding

Continued


between I/O ports, and wire sizesand lengths, it is indeed within therealm of possibility to have 100amps in the signal ground wire!

And, we have a fire hazard.Two or more neutral ground

points necessarily connect theground in parallel with the neutral.Signal grounds are always inparallel with the ground. When-ever the neutral is grounded at twoor more points, the signal groundbetween two points, especiallyremotely located units, may be inparallel with the neutral. Whenthis occurs, some portion of theneutral current will be in the signalground. If the neutral current ishigh enough, it can cause over-heating on the I/O board.

What can be done to prevent thissituation?In order for a grounding conductorto not be a current-carrying con-ductor in parallel with the neutral,the neutral must be limited to onegrounding connection.

Fortunately, single pointgrounding is permitted by boththe NEC and the CEC (see Figure 3and 4).

Your comments on this article arewelcome. Please address yourcomments to the Editor, c/oTandem Computers, ProductSafety Newsletter, 2550 WalshAve., Santa Clara. CA 95051-1392.

4-wlre, 3-phase 208Y/120-V secondary distribution system (From 1987 NEC, Fig. 250-8.)The neutral is grounded at each service and also on the secondary side of the transformer onthis 4-wire, 3-phase, 208Y/120-V secondary distribution system. When 3-wire, 3-phase serviceequipment is installed for power purposes on this type of ac system, the grounded (neutral)conductor is required to be run to the service equipment.

FIGURE 3C. Location of System Grounding Connections (From NEC Article 250-21.)250-21. Objectionable Current over Grounding Conductors

a. Arrangement to Prevent Objectionable Current The grounding of electric systems, circuitconductors, surge arrestors, and conductive noncurrent-carrying materials and equipment shallbe installed and arranged in a manner that will prevent an objectionable flow of current over thegrounding conductors or grounding paths.

b. Alterations to Stop Objectionable Current If the use of multiple grounding connectionsresults in an objectionable flow current, one or more of the following alterations shall be made:

1, Discontinue one or more such grounding connections.2. Change the locations of the grounding connections.3. Interrupt the continuity of the conductor or conductive path interconnecting the grounding

connections.4. Take other suitable remedial action satisfactory to the authority having jurisdiction.

FIGURE 4Grounding Connections for Systems and Circuits (From CEC Section 10-200.)10-200 Current Over Grounding and Bonding Conductors

1. Where wiring systems, circuits, electrical equipment, arrestors, cable armour, conduit, andother metal raceways are grounded as a protective measure, the grounding shall be arranged sothat there is no objectionable passage of current over the grounding conductors.

2. The temporary currents which are set up under accidental conditions while the groundingconductors are performing their intended protective functions shall not be considered asobjectionable.

3. Where through the use of multiple grounds an objectionable flow of current occurs overthe grounding conductor,

a. One or more of the grounds shall be abandoned; orb. The location of the grounds shall be changed; orc. The continuity of the conductor between the grounding connections shall be suitably

interrupted; ord. Other effective action shall be taken to limit the current.

3-wire 120/240-V AC single-phasesecondary distribution system(From 1987 NEC, Fig. 250-7.)On a 2-wire or 3-wire single-phase acsecondary distribution system, groundingconnections are made on the secondaryside of the transformer and on the side ofthe service disconnecting means.


This article is an overview of theHierarchy of Safety Standards inthree Safety agencies. under-standing how Standards interre-late within an organization willprovide the safety engineer abetter concept of how each agencyevaluates a product.

Does a Hierarchy of StandardsExist?Today there is quite a bit ofconfusion regarding the relation-ship between end product andcomponent standards issued bythe IEC, CSA and UL. Is each stan-dard independent? When shouldany of these standards be used?There seems to be some relation-ship between the standards, butwhat is that relationship? When dothe component requirements applyand when don’t they?

It seems that the laws of physicsshould lead us to a single set ofrequirements. These would bebased on a sound technical foun-dation, applicable across a broadline of electrical equipment. Therequirements for protection wouldbe the same in every case; no fireor electric shock should occur.

The system could work byclearly identifying the inherentsafety requirements at each level.This identification of requirementswould run from basic materialsthrough components to the endproducts. It would appropriatelyassign the protection needed tomeet the requirements for the

application. This system wouldsimplify the process of evaluatingthe finished equipment in itsinstallation and would aid inspec-tion and certification by theregulatory bodies. They couldidentify safety aspects as theyapply to a component piece orcomplete product.

Another point is that thissystem would give the material orcomponent industries a say indeveloping the standard applicableto the end product It would alsoinsure that the component require-ments would agree with theproduct requirements, since theywould be built upon the sametechnical considerations.

We see this approach beingused today to some degree by thevarious standards writing bodies.But it is not always clear whichstandards will be invoked in everycase. Sometimes there is a sur-prise. Let’s examine three sets ofstandards to see how they areorganized.

The IEC StandardsThe IEC has the most formalsystem of organization of stan-dards hierarchy. It is explicitlydescribed in IEC Guide 104. Thestated goals are:• To ensure consistency of IECStandards in common areas and toavoid contradictory requirements.• To reduce the volume of IECStandards and to save printingcosts.

• To improve engineeringunderstanding across technicaldisciplines.• To improve coherency of theIEC Standards system.

There are two types of componentstandards in the IEC: Group safetystandards and Basic safety stan-dards. The IEC AdvisoryCommittee on Safety (ACOS)assigns responsibility for Groupsafety or Pilot safety functions tovarious IEC technical committees.The resulting standards may bereferred to by many end productstandards. Let’s look at the twotypes of component standards.

Group Safety StandardsThese are standards that apply toone or more product areas. Boththe technical committee and theIEC standard are listed.

Presently the list of Groupsafety standards includes:

- SC12B/IEC65: Safetyrequirements for mains operatedelectronic and related apparatusfor household and similar generaluse.

- SC14D/IEC742: Isolatingtransformers and safety isolatingtransformer requirements.

- SC23F/IEC685: Connectingdevices for household and similarfixed electrical installations.

- SC66E: General safetyrequirements for measuring,control and associated equipment(in preparation).

Hierarchy of Safety StandardsPeter E. Perkins, P.E., ManagerCorporate Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs Tektronix, Inc.

Continued


Basic Safety StandardsDeveloped by Pilot committees,these standards deal with a spe-cific basic safety aspect (charac-teristic) which applies to mosttypes of electrotechnical products.

Currently the list of Basicsafety standards includes:

- SC15A/IEC 112: Method fordetermining the comparative andthe proof tracking indices forsolid insulation materials undermoist conditions.

- SC15A/IEC 587: Testmethod for evaluating resistanceto tracking and erosion of electri-cal insulating materials usedunder severe ambient conditions.

- TC16/IEC 73: Colors ofindicator lights and push-buttons.

- TC16/IEC 446: Identificationof insulated and bare conductorsby colors.

- TC16/IEC 447: Standarddirection of movement for actua-tors which control the operationof electrical apparatus.

- TC16/IEC 757: Code fordesignation of colors.

- SC28A/IEC 664, 664A:Insulation coordination within

low-voltage systems includingclearances and creepage distancesin equipment.

- SC50D/IEC 695: Fire hazardtesting.

IEC 695-1 Part 1: Guidancefor the preparation of require-ments and test specifications forassessing fire hazard of electro-technical products.

IEC 695-1-1: Generalguidance.

IEC 695-1-2: Guidance forelectronic components.

IEC 695-2, Part 2: Testmethods.

IEC 695-2-1: Glow-wire testand guidance.

IEC 695-2-2: Needle-flametest

IEC 695-3, Part 3: Examplesof fire hazard assessment proce-dures and interpretation of results.

Hierarchy of Safety StandardsContinued


- IEC 695-3-1: Combustioncharacteristics and survey of testmethods for their determination.

TC64/IEC 364-4-41: Electri-cal installations of buildings; Part4: Protection for safety; Chapter41: Protection against electricshock.

IEC 364-5-54, Part 5: Selec-tion and erection of electricalequipment. Chapter 54: Earthingarrangements and protectiveconductors.

TC64/IEC 449: Voltagebands for electrical installations ofbuildings.

TC64/IEC 479: Effects ofcurrent passing through the humanbody.

TC64/IEC 536: Classifica-tion of electrical and electronicequipment with regard to protec-tion against electric shock.

TC70/IEC 529: Classifica-tion of degrees of protectionprovided by enclosures.

TC7 4/WG5 : Methods ofmeasurement of leakage current(in publication).

TC77: Electromagneticcompatibility between electricalequipment including networks��future publication.

The majority of these standardsare available together in the IECpublication, IEC Safety Hand-book-Containing All IEC Basic

Safety Standards, First Edition,1985. (It is available either di-rectly from the IEC in Geneva orfrom ANSI.) The IEC has done agood job in bringing together thiscollection of requirements inorder to explain their system ofstandards. This book is essentialfor anyone working on standardsdevelopment or certifying prod-ucts to IEC requirements.

The CSA StandardsCSA has made a strong effort tohave a consistent set of basicrequirements. This is shown byreference to basic standards in

Continued



many end product standards. Thegoal is to unify requirements.Standards committees may adoptrequirements other than those inbasic standards but must provide atechnical justification to the stan-dards Steering Committee. Therole of this committee and theStandards Administrator is toencourage reference to the basicstandards rather than repeating therequirements in each standard (seeFigure 2).

The Canadian Electrical Code(CEC) C22.2 requirements under-lie all the CSA electrical standards.

C22.2 Part I covers all of thepermanent installation plus mainte-nance of electrical equipment.

C22.2 Part II covers the con-struction, testing and marking ofelectrical equipment. Part II servesas a framework for individualstandards, both basic and productoriented. From No. O-M1982General requirements��CEC, PartII, article II: “This standard shallform a part of, and be read inconjunction with, all individualstandards... Individual standardscontain only the special require-ments applicable to the equipmentthat they cover.”

Included under Part II is the O.xseries, which applies broadlyacross equipment lines. Thesebasic requirements are set outseparately to minimize repeatingthem in each component or prod-uct standard.

No. 0.1-M1985General requirements for doubleinsulated equipment.No. 0.3-M1985Test methods for electrical wiresand cables.No.0.4-M1982Bonding and grounding of electri-cal equipment.No. 0.5-1982Treaded conduit entries.No. 0.6-M1982Flammability testing of polymericmaterials.No. 0.7-M1985Equipment electrically connectedto a telecommunications network.No. 0.8-M1986Safety functions incorporatingelectronic technology.No. 0.11-M1985Classification of polymericcompounds.No. 0.12Wiring space and wire bendingspace in enclosures for equipmentrated 750 V or less.

The many electrical equipmentstandards are also a subset of theCanadian Electric Code. Many ofus are familiar with the standardC22.2 No.220 Safety of Informa-tion Processing Equipment. CSAis now attempting to harmonizethese requirements with the IECrequirements in IEC 950.Harmonization of requirementswith the IEC is a new directionfor CSA.

The UL StandardsThe UL system seems to be theleast organized of the three sys-tems examined. There is no long-standing formal policy aimed atthe development or use of ahierarchical system of standards.However, there has been somerecent commitment to use basicrequirements in a fairly universalway. UL already uses somespecific standards (e.g., UL 746Plastics and UL 796 CircuitBoards) that apply rather univer-sally. UL also recognizes thedifficulty of keeping changingrequirements up to date if theyappear in many different stan-dards. They would like to use themost recent requirements inevaluating products, so the trendin using basic standards is likelyto continue.

The present hierarchical ar-rangement is not always apparentto all product safety engineers, butthey would agree that it is accu-rate. The following examples areorganized from basic require-ments upward to product require-ments (refer to Figure 3).

Fundamental Requirements:UL 94 Plastics FlammabilityUL 746 Plastic MaterialsUL 840 Creepage & ClearanceUL 1097 Double Insulation


Continued


Component Requirements:UL 796 Circuit BoardsUL 1283 EMI FiltersUL 1411 TransformersOther Component RequirementsSubassembly Requirements:UL 1012 Power SupplyRequirementsProduct Requirements:UL 478 EDP EquipmentUL 1244 Test and MeasurementEquipmentOther commercial and industrialelectronic equipment standards.

UL has begun to list some ofthe component standards and fun-damental standards in an appendixto some standards. (UL 478 hassuch an appendix.) This listing

intends to remove surprises whenthese standards are referenced byUL engineers during their investi-gation of the product.

On the other hand, UL hasmixed the telecom requirementsthroughout the proposed UL 1459Telephone Equipment standard.Equipment designed and certifiedto other standards, e.g., UL 478EDP Equipment, will be acceptedproviding it meets the special tele-phone requirements. This creates alot of work in isolating the specialtelephone requirements from theothers given in the standard. (CSAhas done a better job in that theyhave isolated their telecom re-quirements in a separate standard.)

What Does It All Mean?There is both an opportunity anda danger here. The IEC has recog-nized the need for fundamentalrequirements to be laid out bythemselves. They are aggressivelypursuing this system. If we inNorth America wish to be veryinfluential within the worldwidescheme, we should have ourtechnical requirements set out in asimilar manner. If we can ‘ torganize that way, we’ll alwaysbe working to catch up with theIEC to get our practice consideredin those standards.

Some feel uncomfortable withthis scheme, feeling it is too


Continued


complex. However, safety ofproducts is an engineering disci-pline in itself-albeit a fledgingone, though the concern for safetyof electrical products has existedfor 80 to 100 years. Our efforts arebroad in scope, covering every-thing from basic materials chemis-try and physics to traditionalelectrical and mechanical effects,and from the effects of electricshock on the human body to thecontrol of fires in equipment. Thisis not a simple discipline; we haveno reason to expect the organiza-tion of standards to be simple.

Where Can We Go From Here?With the complex forces at workin the field of product safety,there are many routes availablefor future direction. Obviously,not everyone has felt a far-reach-ing need for the hierarchical or-ganization of standards. Manufac-turers ought to examine theirinterest in this matter. The majortest houses should be examiningtheir positions. Do they want to beworking in a reactive mode all thetime? Can they provide a channelto proactive standard develop-ment? The extensive experienceof the test houses and their data-base of information is key to

Can you relate to the youngster who runs up to Dad with his first attempt at making bookends? What thebookends lack in craftsmanship are made up for by enough nails to sink a battleship. Yet Junior is proudand hopes Dad is as well. That’s the feeling we have as we mail you this newsletter. We’re hoping you’ll beproud that it’s from an organization you’re associated with. The difference between Junior and ourselves isthat we know we’ve got some way to go in craftsmanship and hope you’ll give us your suggestions.

This second issue prepared by the professionals in Tandem’s Graphics department is a giant step up fromthe editions done on the home typewriter. Besides their excellent work, we have the tremendous contribu-tions of Rich Nute (Technically Speaking), Rich Pescatore (Chairman’s Message), Dave Edmunds (Newsand Notes), Area Activity Report contributors, and other more recent contributors and volunteers we’llintroduce in the next issue. And then there is Dr. Z, taking Product Safety to places it’s never been before!

Despite the contributions of the above and Jane Benner’s faithful typing, we find that a bimonthlypublication schedule is necessary for now. The size of our publication and the mailing expenses are becom-ing excessive for a monthly publication. We would like to hear your thoughts on this new schedule. Wecertainly do not want to rule out a return to a monthly publication, depending on your responses.

Our staff is growing as we look for better ways to serve you. And like Junior, we’ll be looking for waysto replace the nails with better craftsmanship.

Roger Volgstadt, Editor


correlating a sound analyticalstructure to the real world. Todate, ANSI has apparently optedto leave all detailed decisions inthe hands of the users and devel-opers of standards in the USA. Dowe need a national policy on thistopic? Should the U.S. be a leaderor a follower in the organizationof standards? What does yourcompany desire in this regard? Inwhat direction does your industryassociation want to move? Whatare your own professional opin-ions? Let us know what youthink. Perhaps we will hear fromyou right here in these pages.

Editorial


News and NotesDave Edmunds, Xerox Corp.

VDT Users GuideA 90-page document intended foruse by professionals with techni-cal responsibility for the installa-tion and setup of VDTs is avail-able from ANSI, 1430 Broadway,N.Y., N. Y. 10018 for a cost of$25.00. This document (ANSI/HFS 100-1988) provides require-ments for VDTs used in a varietyof applications, and furniture usedwith them and the office environ-ment in which they are used.Techniques for the measurementcompliance to the standard re-quirements are given.

The document provides re-quirements for office lighting,noise, and temperature. Enhanc-ing work posture, comfort of theuser, seating, and performance ontask on the workstation is the goalof the design requirements of thework station.

ANSI CatalogA revised Catalog of AmericanNational Standards has beenissued by ANSI. The 176-pagepublication lists more than 8000ANSI approved standards in fieldsof safety and health, acoustics,construction, gas appliances, etc.

Pay Dues by Credit Card!!!The IEEE board of directors hasapproved the use of most majorcredit cards to pay for service anddues of the Institute. Membersmay use the credit cards forpayment of dues and services suchas publications, provided theamount is over $10.00. The IEEEhas issued its own card (goldMasterCard and Visa), which isfree for the first year and anannual fee thereafter. Annual ratesvary depending on the companyand monthly balance.

CSA Notice 521 B onInformation Processing andBusiness EquipmentDated September 11, 1988, thisnotice states the requirements forcontinuing listing of products intwo categories of InformationProcessing and Business Equip-ment as 1) those intended to beconnected to the telephone net-work and 2) those NOT intendedto be connected to the telephonenetwork. Each category hasdifferent dates and requirements.For further information, contactCSA Application Section,Customers Group, Rex dale, (416)747-2332 or any CSA regional oroverseas office.

“Product Liability ConstraintsDesign” ...... is a subheading of an articleprinted in the August 1988 issueof Mechanical Engineeringentitled “Defensive Designing: AGuard against the Bizarre,” pages40-42. This article briefly tracesthe start of product liability andits increase in the society.

Engineering Opinion SurveyA survey has just been publishedby the IEEE USAB (United StatesActivity Board). This surveyreports that engineers endorsehigher standards for engineersentering the profession andcontinuing education for those inthe field. A large majority believean exam in overall knowledge inmath and natural sciences shouldbe recommended for all B.S.E.E.Members also support “whistleblowers” who make public theirsubstantiated concerns on safetydeficiences. Copies of the surveycan be obtained from PublicationSales, IEEE Service Center, 445Hoes Lane, Piscatawa, NJ 08855,(215) 981-1393.

We have been considering the possibility of accepting paid advertising in theProduct Safety Newsletter. Any individuals or companies who may be interested,

please direct inquiries to the Editor, enclosing a sample advertisement.


In the world of Product Safetyand Certification, there are manypitfalls for the unwary. If youhave a problem that seems insol-uble, then it’ s time to ask DoctorZ! He has the answers, derivedfrom his many years of trainingand experience in the Science ofProduct Safetiology. Pitfalls holdno terrors for Dr. Z, since he ison a first name basis with most ofthem. Any resemblance to per-sons, places, products, agencies,or good advice is purely coinci-dental, but don’t let that stop you.Write to Dr. Z today.

Robert Runte, Field ResearcherGuaranteed GenuineGenealogies, Inc.

Dear Doctor Z,I seem to be caught in a Catch-22situation and don’t know where toturn. Perhaps you can help.

I was using a Type 40Chronoshift when the displace-ment unit blew, leaving mestranded here. I managed to makeemergency repairs, but the serv-ice manual says that, due to thedanger of violating the ChangedConsequences Act of’ 42, I haveto have any alterations to theChronoshift certified by a safetyengineer before attempting tooperate it. Unfortunately, it alsospecifies that the repair certifica-tion has to be from the samevendor as the original part. Since

the Type 40s were certified byEECSA, which won’t be foundedfor another 60 years yet, I don’tsee how I can comply with therequirement for safety cenifica-tion without using the Chronoshiftto move forward to the earliestEECSA office, which of coursemeans violating the safety regula-tions! In such a situation, would itbe appropriate to have the repairedcircuits certified by anothervendor?

If not, am I stranded hereforever or what? I mean, is thesafety certification supposed to befor my benefit (in which case I’llrisk it) or for third party liability?

Confused and Desperate

Dear Confused,It looks like a Catch-22 situationall right, but I am surprised that anindividual who is bright enough toget the letter time-shifted so itcould be delivered to Dr. Z hasn’tgot this figured out.

If you sign up to the school ofthought that “rules is rules,” itseems like you should get used toyour new time period. The onlyhope you may have is if yourclient gets concerned over Guar-antee Genuine Genealogies, Inc.’sinability to deliver the data, andyour client comes looking for you.If this happens, you may getrescued, and meet the ChangedConsequences Act of ’42 bytransporting your repaired Type

40 Chronoshift displacement unitto the EECSA for certification onthe rescue ship.

Now, if waiting around isn’tyour cup of tea, you have somedecisions to make. From yourletter, it appears there are twoissues.

First, is your repair sufficient tosafely move you back to theorigin of this trip? Without thebenefit of EECSA repair cenifica-tion, you should be able to deter-mine the functionality and relia-bility of the repair. If you are notconfident of this analysis, itappears from your letter that thereare individuals available who canmake this determination. A slip-up here may be life threatening.

Second, assuming the repairwill work safely, what are theconsequences of violating the“C.C. Act of’ 42"? Are theyworse than remaining stranded?What are the “ Act” consequencesif the repair does not work safely?(If you are the only victim, this ismoot.)

Let’s look at the case where therepair works. Why does a regula-exist in the first place? Safetyregulations are intended to benefitmankind by establishing a mini-mum level of safety. Regulationscan also be written for otherpurposes, such as to ensure theeconomic welfare of a specifiedgroup. For now, we will assume

Ask Doctor Z

Continued


the Changed Consequences Act of’42 was written for reasons otherthan the economic welfare ofcertification houses.

A regulatory authority issupposed to exercise judgmentand flexibility in the administra-tion of “rules.” You have thepossibility of using the repairedunit, submitting the repaired unitto the EECSA after your return tothe appropriate time period andfiling a report with the regulatorybody administering the “ Act”asking for a variance to cover

what you did! I do not know ifhaving the repair certified byanother test house before usingthe repair would have an impacton the decision of the regulatoryauthority. Obtaining the other cer-tification may demonstrate yourintent to support the act. So doesfiling for a variance on yourreturn. Flip a coin???

Dr. Z doubts the purpose of the“Act” was to strand time travelersshould the Chronoshift fail.Safety certifications are intendedto benefit the individual using the

Santa Clara Valley ChapterReportRichard Pescatore opened theSeptember meeting with a shortreview of the relationship of theProduct Safety Technical Comrnit-tee (PSTC) to the IEEE. Rich thenintroduced Kevin Ravo, the newchairman of the MembershipCommittee.

John McBain exhibited an ad-vance copy of the Septembernewsletter. The Society would liketo thank everyone who helped withthe newsletter.

The guest speaker for the meet-ing was Dr. Ruth Redden, senior

general council for John Fluke Inc.The topic of the night was on theEuropean HaIn1onized Directive.Dr. Hedden outlined how theDirective will affect productliability and the responsibility ofindustry. According to DoctorHedden, tremendous legal changesare occurring as Europe movestoward strict product liability.

Election of 1989 SCVC officerswas the main event at our Octobermeeting. Brain Claes was selectedas chairman, replacing RichPescatore. Brian will be supportedby newly elected officers HughHagel, vice chairman, Rick Buck,

secretary/treasurer, and KevinRavo, membership committeechairman. National positions arestill open for paper review chair-man, symposium liaison chairmanand standards liaison chairman(contact Rich Pescatore). Addi-tional local committee chairmanpositions may be available in thenear future. Please see Brian Claesif you are interested.

Jim Duckett, chairman of thelocal EMC Society, presented theSCV PSTC with a check for$2000 for local activities.

Serge Bousquet of CSA will bethe guest speaker at our next

Area Activity Reports

Continued

product, so you can “risk it.”Regarding your question onliability, the bottom line is that ifsomeone gets hurt, there is somesort of compensation. Period. Aslaws governing liability vary, Iwouldn’t spend much time on thisaspect in your case. Instead,concentrate on making the repairsafe so you can complete your tripand address the variance. If thetrip is completed safely, liabilitydoesn’t enter the picture.

See ya around some time,Dr.Z

Ask Doctor ZContinued


meeting, which will be heldTuesday, November 22,1988, at7:00 p.m. at Apple Computer,20525 Mariani Ave., Cupertino,on the corner of De Anza Blvd.(just south of Hwy. 280). Sergewill discuss several topics relatingto CSA activities and standardsand, of course, will be availablefor questions.

There will be no meeting of theSCVC in December. Questionsregarding the Santa Clara ValleyChapter may be directed to RickBuck, (415) 967-4166.

Northeast ChapterThe last meeting of the NortheastChapter was held on Wednesday,October 26, 1988, at the SheratonBoxborough Hotel. Forty-eightpeople heard Dan Bunge ofStratus Computers give a briefsummary of the last CBEMAmeeting. Bruce Langmuir ofBOSE Corp. spoke on recent EIAsafety related activity. MarkSwank of TUV Rheinland thendiscussed changes in Europeanrequirements for MOVs, monitorsand the over current protectionrequirements of IEC 950.

Jim Norgaard reports thatmembership has grown to 147.Mailing meeting announcementsand letters of introduction to localmanufacturing companies is oneof the ways Jim has found toincrease awareness and interest inthe Chapter. Attendance has been

so good that they have had tomove future meetings to theSheraton Boxborough to accom-modate the attendees.

Please refer to the calendar at theend of the newsletter for aschedule of the next two meetingsof the Northeast Chapter. Ques-tions may be directed to JimNorgaard at Dash, Straus andGoodhue, (508) 263-2662.

Northwest Area ReportThursday, October 20, was thedate of the fall meeting for thePacific Northwest Chapter. Asreported previously, the meetingwas held at Tektronix in Wilson-ville, Oregon. The main topic ofdiscussion was InternationalPower Line Configurations andComponents. The meeting wasopened with a discussion showinga concern for the lack of atten-dance from the non-host cities.This meeting was well attended, as54 people were there. The bulk ofthe Northwest Chapter membersare from the Portland area.

Steve Miller from AT&Tstarted the agenda with an interest-ing discussion on abnormal ACvoltages. It was very interesting tonote the kinds of things thathappen when one fuse blows on athree-phase system or when theneutral opens in a single-phasesupply. Our equipment should beprepared to see much more thanplus or minus 10 percent of thenominal supply voltage.

Philip Tradgett from TektronixU.K. explained the philosophybehind the U .K. ring circuits andtheir fused plugs. Ab Kars fromTektronix Holland showed howthe main circuit supply of Hollandis very typical of most circuits inEurope. Yoshio Yamada fromSony Tektronix explained howpower generating equipmentbought both in Europe and theU.S. is the reason for Japan beinghalf 50 Hz and half 60 Hz. As ourNorwegian guests were unable tostay in the U.S., Rich Nute gave areport on a new program offeredby NEMKO which is comparableto the CSA category certificationprogram. The program allows youto do your own testing and allreports can be generated inEnglish. As soon as the report issent in, the use of their mark isallowed. The program is calledTBM (test by manufacturer) anddetails on the program can beobtained from NEMKO.

Bob Wallace from Tektronixintroduced an IEC draft proposalfor a new method of measuringleakage current that will beadopted by most of the majorstandards excluding medicalequipment and a few others. Hispresentation started with a look atthe history of leakage current andbody resistance measurements atdifferent frequencies. The notionof the possibility of using a shockto revive something that had been

Area Activity ReportsContinueed

Continued


shocked was discovered as earlyas 1771.

The meeting concluded with avideotape on U.S. circuit breakersthat do not open during very shorthigh current pulses and how fusesor magnetic circuit breakers willopen. It also showed the dramaticlimits of 12 and 14 gauge Romexwire typically used in households.

The time, place, and topic of ournext meeting will be decidedby the Northwest Chapter officersin the next few months.

Southern California ChapterThe last meeting of the SouthernCalifornia Chapter of the Techni-cal Committee on Product Safetywas held on October 3, 1988. Thiswas the third meeting and washeld at MAI Basic Four in Tustin.There were six people in atten-dance. During the meeting, newmembers were welcomed andminutes were approved. Thescheduled presentation on LaserSafety by Dr. James A. Roseborowas postponed until the nextmeeting on Monday, November 7,1988, at 6:00 p.m.

The meeting continued with adiscussion on the UL plans forpublication of UL 1950, the IECversion of Information Processing

Equipment and the CSA plans topublish an IEC version of CSA220. It was suggested that theChapter should conduct a surveyto determine the various Agen-cies/Standards that the chapter isinvolved in and the specific areasof expertise of the Chapter. Planswere discussed to increase atten-dance.

Paul Henick was electedsecretary/treasurer, joining CharlieBayhi, chairman, Rolf Burckhardt,vice-chairman, and Ercell Bryant,program chairman.

Meetings will be scheduledevery month, according to thefollowing schedule:

Monday, November 7, 1988Laser Safety by Dr. James A.Roseboro

Monday, December 5, 1988ETL, Present and Future byLarry Todd

Monday, January 9, 1989 HowSafe are Circuit Breakersby PACE, Inc.

Details as to location and timecan be found on the last page ofthe newsletter, under Calendar .Questions can be directed toCharlie Bayhi at MAI Basic Four,(714) 730-2556.

Future Areas:Please contact John if you want toencourage formation of a Chicagoarea chapter.

John AllenMitsubishi Electric800 Biennann CourtMount Prospect, IL 60056Phone: (312) 699-4414Fax: (312) 824- 7221

George is planning an organiza-tional meeting for a Central TexasChapter. Please give him a call ifyou're interested.

George JurasichTUV Rheinland of N .A., IncSuite 1653420 Executive Center Dr.Austin, TX 78731Phone: (512) 343-6231Fax: (512) 343-6233

Steve is looking for interestedpeople in the Denver, Colorado,area.

Steve TarketHewlett-Packard3404 E. Harmony Rd.Fort Collins, CO 80525Phone: (303) 229-2481Fax: (303) 229-2692

Area Activity ReportsContinueed


Questionnaire Membership

If you have not filed a questionnaire with the Technical Committee of the IEEE EMC Society, then we encourage you to doso with the following form. You may have filed a questionnaire with your local Chapter, in which case there is no need toreturn this form. Please return the form to the appropriate address shown at the bottom of this form.

Southern CalIforniaFileNet, Inc.3565 Harbor Blvd.Costa Mesa, CA 92626Attn: Mr. Ercell Bryant

Pacific Northwest (Seattle Area)John Fluke Mfg. Co., Ltd.P.O. Box C9090Everett, WA 98206Attn: Walt Halt

Northern CalIforniaUnderwriters Laboratories1655 Scott Blvd.Santa Clara, CA 95050Attn: Mr. Kevin Ravo“Product Safety Technical Committee”

Pacific Northwest (Portland Area)Western Transformers6701 S.E. Alberta St.Portland, OR 97206Attn: Mr. Art Henderson

Northeast AreaDash, Straus & Goodhue593 Massachusetts Ave.Boxborough,MA 01719Attn: Mr. Jim Norgaard

Other Locations:Tandem Computers2550 Walsh Avenue.Santa Clara, CA 95051Attn: Roger Volgstadt

Name: ___________________________________________________________ Company: _______________________Street Address: ______________________________________________________ P.O. Box/Mail Stop: ________________City:______________________________ State: __________________________ Zip Code: _______________________Telephone Number: __________________________________________________ Fax Number: ____________________________

Types of product dealt with: _____________________________________________________________________________Regulatory agencies familiar with: _________________________________________________________________________Your background in product safety: ________________________________________________________________________Affiliations: _______________________________________________________________________________________Since we are affiliated with the IEEE, your membership in the IEEE is desirable. Please indicate your membership status

or if you would like an IEEE membership application:

Are you a member of the IEEE? ______ If No, would you like a membership application: ________________________________________If Yes, specify your membership no.___ membership grade:_____________ IEEE Societies: ____________________________________Please help us to identify topics of interest for Chapter meetings and technical articles by ranking the following topics.

Please rank the following from “10” (most interest) to “1 “ (least interest).

Product Liability ____________________________________ System safety Analysis Techniques ________________________Software Safety ____________________________________ Quantitative Risk Analysis/Hazard Assessment Techniques__________Hazards, Type: _____________________________________________________________________________________Test Methods _____________________________________ CSA Presentation, Subject:______________________________TUV Presentation, Subject: ____________________________ UL Presentation, Subject: ______________________________Human Factors ____________________________________ Product Safety Management ____________________________United States/Canadian Fair Trade Agreement, Effects on Product Safety _________________________________________________Other Subject: _____________________________________________________________________________________Would you be interested in contributing articles, cartoons, news items, etc., to the Product Safety Newsletter? ___________________________Would you like to be actively involved with other committee activities such as membership coordination, etc. ? __________________________If not in an area with a Product Safety Committee, would you be interested in organizing a committee in your area? ________________________

Please return this questionnaire to the appropriate address:


Mail BoxingMr. Jeffery Lind’s letter to you isan interesting exposition of acertain point of view. Given thepoint of view which seems to beclearly represented, I would saythat Mr. Lind did an eloquent jobof pressing his point.

Unfortunately, I stronglydisagree with his vision of theparamount role of the professionalsafety engineer.

Mr. Lind seems to be equating“requirements” with “informa-tion” and that the wise old safetyengineer and the fledgling safetyengineer have the common bondof seeking a certification for theirproduct as a logical culmination oftheir professional duties (this isoften referred to as the “certifica-tion mentality”). Acquiring safetyagency bumper stickers mayindeed be the charter of some ofus, particularly in certain worksituations. But it is being a bitpatronizing to call such work“engineering.” And I fail to seemuch professionalism that can beassigned to agency-chasing. Sothe pursuit of “requirements” and“certifications” may be justifiableduring a grunt day but I suggestthat it would be a mistake to

confuse daily pragmatic needswith the goals of a Product SafetySociety.

The goals of the Product SafetySociety would be better cast on ahigher plane than agency-chasing!There has been much mention ofenhancing the professional charac-ter of the members through theefforts of the Society (and thispublication). Although this couldmean almost anything, it certainlysounds reasonable. And, to me, itsuggests an intellectual endeavorthat is both fatiguing and exhilarat-ing��i.e., bust the rust loose fromthe ol' synapses and go a-huntingsome basic truths, however contro-versial. When does a productsafety technician suddenly becomea product safety engineer (in thesense of the Society’s mission)?To what criteria are such judg-ments made?

When does a product safetyengineer suddenly become aprofessional product safety engi-neer and why? Such questionssmack of the kind of thing thatsocieties are created for. Furthergrowth for the members ...Growthin the cleverness with which oneacquires bumper stickers? I thinknot. Growth in the ability to

recognize a foolish requirementwith a view toward championinga revision in that foolish require-ment? Probably. Growth in beingable to actually influence thestandards maintainers via soliddata and effective selling throughcognizance of the real needs?Probably. All these things comefrom a basic impulse to betterknow the “big picture.” Certifica-tion, as such, is a very small partof the discipline of safety engi-neering in many practitioners'eyes. Why not soar with theeagles instead of grubbing aroundwith the sparrows?

What’s wrong with “infight-ing”? Sharpens the senses. What’swrong with controversy? ’Tis theonly way anyone will ever have ofknowing whether their pet theoryis dogfood. Egotists are runningaround loose; each of us knowsscores. Why expect a societypublication to be exorcised ofegotists when the rest of the worldisn’t? Why worry about “require-ments” when there are so manyintellectual growth opportunitiesby leaving certification behindand seeking true safety engineer-ing? “... and you absolutely need

Letters to the Editor

The following letters were received since our last edition of the Product Safety Newsletter. Theeditor reserves the right to edit letters to fit the available space. Opinions expressed are those of theauthors and do not necessarily represent those of the newsletter staff or the Product Safety TechnicalCommittee of the IEEE EMC Society.

Continued


the support of the agencies tobecome a voice.” That assertiondismays me. If anything, the in-verse is true. If Mr. Lind means“become a voice in certification,”then I suppose his assertion makessense. But I can detect no one whosees the Society’s goals as beingthat parochial. If he means “be-come a voice in safety engineer-ing,” then the assertion is meaning-less. Certification must not beconfused with “safety engineer-ing”!

I feel that this publication hasbeen surprisingly successful inforging a “tone” which compli-ments the aims of the Society as Iunderstand them. If this is true,

then it is immediately successfulin being a “positive force in theSafety field.” There has been littleimpetus to become a “positiveforce in the Certification field.”

Jerry Blanz, Hewlett Packard

More About TUVIn reference to Letters to theEditor entitled “OOPs Depart-ment” in the September/October1988 issue (p. 21), I strongly feelthat some of the statements madeby Laszlo P. Hasenau of TUVRheinland of N.A. completelymisrepresented the true facts ofthis matter .

His letter implies that amongall the TUVs in the United States,

Letters to the EditorContinued

only TUV Rheinland of N .A. hasthe authorization to issue the GSmark.

TUV Essen Laboratories is afully authorized North Americansubsidiary of TUV Rheinisch-Westfalischer (Essen) of EssenGermany [annual report attachedto author’s letter not includedhere-Ed.].

Mr. Hassenau stated that neitherTUV Rheinsich-Westfalischer (orTUV Essen as used here in theU.S. as well as in Germany as anabbreviation) nor TUV Americaare listed in the Equipment SafetyLaw Book (GSG) as recognizedtest agencies. He then gives apartial list of approved agencies. Itseems that he purposely stopped at# 5 because # 6 is in fact TUVEssen (Rheinisch-Westfalisher).Gendemen, this sort of tactic isindicative of questionable businesspractice.

I want to assure you and yourreaders that the GS, Bauart andIEC Mark Licenses issued by TUVEssen Labs are no different inquality or authorization thanlicenses issued by the otherAUTHORIZED TUV AGENCIES.

Please clarify this matter bypublishing this letter in the nextissue of the Product Safety News-letter. Please also send me a copy.Thank you.

Roman RakovskyGeneral Manager, TUV Essen

Laboratories


Product Safety TechnicalCommittee:Rich Pescatore, National ChairmanHewlett-Packard (MS 42LS)19447 Pruneridge Ave.Cupertino, CA 95014(408) 447-6607

Jim Norgaard, Vice-ChairmanDash Straus & Goodhue593 Massachusetts Ave.Boxborough, MA 01719(617) 263-2662

John McBain, Sec./TreasurerHewlett-Packard (MS 42LS)19447 Pruneridge Ave.Cupertino, CA 95014(408) 447-0738

Roger Volgstadt, CommunicationsProduct Safety NewsletterTandem Computers Incorporated2550 Walsh Ave.Santa Clara, CA 95051(408) 748-2102Fax: (408) 748-2137

Mike Harris, Paper ReviewTeccom Co.699 Baffin StreetFoster City, CA 94404(415} 345-9403

Santa Clara Valley Area:Brian Claes, ChairmanTandem Computers Incorporated19333 Vallco Pkwy.Cupertino, CA 95014(408) 725-5173

Hugh Hagel, Vice-Chairman/ProgramsPriam Corporation20 w. Montague Expwy.San Jose, CA 95134(408) 434-9300 ‘x4525

Rick Buck, Sec./TreasurerElliott Associates897 Independence Ave.Mountain View, CA 94043(415) 967-7315

Kevin Ravo, MembershipUnderwriters Laboratories Inc.1655 Scott Blvd.Santa Clara, CA 95050-4169(408) 985-2400 ext. 2311

Pacific Northwest Area:Rich Nute, ChairmanHewlett-PackardP .0. Box C-006Vancouver, WA 98668(206) 254-8110 ext. 2691

Gary Mclnturff, Vice-Chairman/ProgramsISG Systems Gorp.E. 22425 ApplewayLiberty Lake, WA 99019(509) 927-5105

AI Van Houdt, Secretary/TreasurerSpaceLabs4200 150th Ave.N.E. P.O. Box 97013Redmond, WA 98073

Walt Hart, Membership(Seattle Area)John Fluke Mfg. Co. Ltd.P.O. Box C9090Everett, WA 98206(206) 356-5177

Art Henderson, Membership(Portland Area)Western Transformers6701 S.E. Alberta St.Portland, OR 97206(503) 777-5636

Northeast Area:Jim Norgaard, ChairmanDash Straus & Goodhue593 Massachusetts Ave.Boxborough,MA 01719(617) 263-2662(other officers to be elected)

Southern California Area:Charles Bayhi, ChairmanMAl Basic Four Inc. (#303)14101 Myford Road Tustin,CA 92680(714) 730-2556

Rolf Burckhardt, Vice-Chairman9420 Reseda Blvd., Suite 800Northridge, CA 91324(818) 368-2786

Paul Herrick, Secretary/TreasurerGradco Systems Inc.7 MorganIrvine, CA 92718(714) 768-6939

Ercell Bryant, ProgramsFileNet3565 Harbor Blvd.Costa Mesa, CA 92626(714) 966-3459

Denver, Colorado, Area Contact:Steve TarketHewlett-Packard (MS 65)3404 E. Harmony RoadFt. Collins, CO 80525(303) 229-2481

Officers and Committees


TheProductSafetyNewsletter

c/o Tandem Computers Incorporated2550 Walsh AvenueSanta Clara, CA 95051Attn: Roger Volgstadt

Wednesday, November 16Northeast ChapterSubject: SEMKO and ULSpeaker: Per-Olaf and Randy IvansTime: 7:00 p.m.Location: Sheraton Boxborough

Intersection of Rts 495/111Boxborough, Mass.

Contact: Mr. Jim Norgaard(508) 263-2662

Tuesday, November 22Santa Clara Valley ChapterSubject: CSA PresentationSpeaker: Serge BousquetTime: 7:00 p.m.Location: Apple Computer

20525 Mariani AveCupertino, CA .

Contact: Mr. Rick Buck{415) 967-4166

Monday, December 5Southern California ChapterSubject: ETL, Present and FutureSpeaker: Larry ToddTime: 6:00 p.m.Location: MAl Basic Four, Inc.

14101 Myford Ad.Tustin, CA 92680

Contact: Mr. Charles Bayhi(714) 730-2556

Wednesday, December 14Northeast ChapterSubject: Factory MutualSpeaker: Frank McGowanTime: 7:00 p.m.Location: Sheraton Boxborough

Intersection of Rts 495/111Boxborough,Mass.

Contact: Mr. Jim Norgaard(508) 263-2662

CalendarThe Product Safety Technical Committee of the IEEE EMC Society

Monday, January 9 SouthernCalifornia ChapterSubject: PACE, Inc.- How Safe

Are Circuit Breakers?Time: 6:00 p.m.Location: MAl Basic Four, Inc.

14101 Myford Ad.Tustin, CA 92680

Contact: Mr. Charles Bayhi(714) 730-2556

Pacific Northwest ChapterNext meeting details: To bedetermined.

Product Safety Newsletter 88V01N9...Bell, Annie Valva and Jodi Elgin of Tandom Computers for their work in preparing this newsletter. Editor Roger Volgstadt News Editor David Edmunds

Documents