Quote: (Originally Posted by
divetheworld)
C'mon Alex, you know thats not anywhere near true.
1, Standards are not law, and compliance with Harmonised standards is not required by law. Conformity with a national standard that transposes a harmonised standard, whose reference has been published, confers a presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the applicable New Approach directive that is covered by such a standard. The references in the Official Journal do not support your comment. 2. 61508 has a scope, the scrubber cart is not covered by that scope. The reference in EN14143 is exactly as follows; 5.13 Electrical systems
5.13.1 Functional safety
Any electrical, electronic or programmable electronic part of the apparatus shall satisfy the requirements of IEC 61508, Part 1 to Part 7.
Testing shall be done in accordance with 6.2.
Brent Hudson .eng
DTI Appointed Notified Body
Member of the Technical Standards Sub-committee.
Co-Author of ther HSE Guidance on Electronically Programmable Safety Related Control Systems SIM
The requirement for CE marking of product is law.
The requirements to be met for a CE mark is set down by regulatory standards.
Your point that the standard itself is not law is true, but compliance with the standard is a legal requirement by virtue of the need for CE marking.
EN61508 covers the whole equipment that incorporates electronic, electrical or programmable assemblies because it is a requirement that the assembly prevents a critical failure of the equipment with a higher probability than its rated SIL level (in this case, SIL 4). It is a requirement of EN61508 to extend the reaches of the system, so one cannot isolate a small piece of electronics and say that alone meets SIL x.
By making EN61508 normative for EN14143:2003, it casts a wide net. Much wider than the authors of EN14143 intended, I am sure.
I accept that a canister that is not in an eCCR is not covered by EN61508, which is why I was careful to specify eCCRs in my posting.
Cheers,
Alex