In this issue Page Product - IEEEewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/Downloads/newsletters/88v01n8.pdfis, like...

Product Safety Newsletter • Page 1

TheProductSafetyNewsletter

Vol.1, No. 8 September / October 1988

Chairman’s Message

Continued

Chairman's Message Richard Pescatore 1

Technically Speaking Rich Nute 2

Safety of Power Cords, Patton & Associates 3

Extension Cords and

Branch Circuit Breakers

EMC Symposium Report 4

CSA 220 Questionnaire Pam Kawashima and 5

Roger Volgstadt

Traceability of Plastics Pete Perkins 14

Product Safety News 16

Area Activity Reports 17

For Your Informatopm 19

Letters to the Editor 21

WHAT is the purpose of a news-letter? More specifically, what isthe purpose of this newsletter?

Merriam-Webster defines news-letter as a “printed sheet, pam-phlet, or small newspaper contain-ing news or information of inter-est chiefly to a special group.”

To date, this newsletter hasserved to:� Disseminate information of gen-eral interest; i.e., publicize events,purpose of the group, etc.� Allow individuals to expresstheir opinions to a wide audience.� Provide a forum for-individualsto debate issues publicly.

In short, this collection of pageshas provided a medium to presentand share views and disseminateinformation.

Is this a good newsletter, one ofhigh quality? Only you, ourreaders, can answer this. But letme share my thoughts, along with

the thoughts of one of our readers,on the subject.

We have been working hard toattempt to meet your needs andwants in a newsletter. Little hasbeen done to limit the publicationof your thoughts. Editing has beenkept to a minimum, and as manyletters as space permits have beenpublished.

Yes, opposing views have beenpublished. I have viewed this as ahealthy exchange of opinion anddidn’t give it much furtherthought. That is, until I read aletter from one of our readers, Mr.Jeff Lind. (Jeff's letter appears inthe Letters to the Editor column.)

Jeff identifies the subject of histhoughtful letter as “Infighting”and raises some very interestingpoints that I had not previouslyconsidered. He views some ofour articles or reader letters as"combative” and “ego-driven.”He goes on to suggest that some

articles “undermine publishedagency requirements.”

As mentioned above, ‘I have notviewed our newsletter in thislight. I can assure you that every-one involved with the newsletteris, like Jeff, “sincere and serous.”We want to be a “positive force”in our profession.

The people who work to get thenewsletter published and into yourhands work hard to make thishappen. In addition to the contrib-uting writers, John McBain andRoger Volgstadt are both ex-tremely dedicated to producing aquality document. The manyhours that each of these individu-als contribute to this cause areproof enough.

If Jeff’s point of view is typical,we cannot consider our publica-tion a good one. To understandthe situation, we need your feed-back. Please send your comments

In this issue Page


TheProductSafetyNewsletter

Chariman's MessageContinued

The Product Safety News-letter is published monthly bythe Product Safety TechnicalCommittee of the IEEE EMCSociety. No part of thisnewsletter may be repro-duced without written permis-sion of the authors. All rightsto the articles remain with theauthors. Opinions expressedin this newsletter are those ofthe authors and do not neces-sarily represent the opinionsof the Technical Committeeor its members. Commentsand questions about thenewsletter may be addressedto the Product Safety News-letter, Attention: RogerVolgstadt, c/o TandemComputers Incorporated 2550Walsh Ave. Santa Clara, CA95051-1392, Fax No: 408-748-2137. Letters and articlesshould be received by thefourth Friday of the month tobe included in the next month’snewsletter. This newsletter is preparedby the Corporate GraphicsGroup of Tandem ComputersIncorporated The editorwishes to extend a specialthanks to Melanie Bell,Jaroslav Bondy Dostal andJodi Elgin of TandemComputers Incorporated fortheir work In preparing thisnewsletter.

Continued

Technically SpeakingRich Nute

to me in care of:Hewlett-Packard19447 Pruneridge Ave., M/S 42LSCupertino, CA 95014

Please let us have your com-ments so that we can meet yourneeds. Let me know what youthink of the quality of this news-letter. What you like. What youdon’t like.

To answer my first questionabout the purpose of this newslet-

ter: its purpose is to serve you, ourmembers, and provide you with apublication that fills your wantsand needs as product safetyprofessionals. Only with yourhelp can we accomplish thispurpose .

Thank you, Jeff, for sharingyour thoughts. Now let’s hearfrom the rest of you!

Rich Pescatore, Chairman

Vol.1, No.8 September/October 1988

Hello from Vancouver, USA!

Furor and controversy are wordswhich describe the process bywhich standards committeesdecide the value of the resistor inthe leakage current measuringnetwork.

However, the different specifiedresistor values create no morethan a 6.25% error for the valueof the leakage current.

More furor and controversysurround the selection of theresistor tolerance. The resistortol-erance creates almost the samepercentage error in the measuredvalue.

Still more furor and controversyoccur when we compare theANSI, UL, CSA and IEC measur-

ing circuits.The ANSI, UL, CSA and IEC

circuits are demonstrably identi-cal; all four give the same meas-ured value.

Resistor ValueDifferent standards specify differ-ent values for the current-sam-pling resistor in the current-measuring circuit for electricshock current and leakage current.Examples of these different valuesare:500 ohms: UL 1270,Paragraph 19.11000 ohms: UL 544,Paragraph 27.13


1500 ohms: UL 478,

Paragraph 28A.6

2000 ohms: UL 1459,

Paragraph 48.6

What difference do these values

make?

Let us assume that we are measur-ing

0.5 milliampere of leakage current from

a 120-volt product. To have leakage

current we must have a circuit consist-

ing of a volt-age source, a series

impedance, the current-sampling

resistor (1500 ohms), and a return path

(ground). (See Figure 1.) We know E

(120 volts) and I (0.5 mA). Using

Ohm’s law, the total resistance in the

circuit, including the 1500-ohm

current-sampling resistor is:

E 120 R = ——— or ———

1 0.5.E-3

R = 240 ohms

Subtracting the 1500-ohm current-

sampling resistor, we have a source

resistance of 238.5 k ohms. Using this

value, we can calculate the current

when using other values of current-

sampling resistor.

And, we can repeat the calcula-tions

for a 240-volt source.

And, we can repeat the calcula-tions

for 3.5 milliamperes and 5.0 milliam-

peres leakage current.

What do these data mean ? Es-

sentially, we have a current

source. This means that the

current is nearly independent of

the load which, in this case, is the

current -sampling resistor.

The worst-case error is +6.25%.

This means that a manufacturer

could test leakage Current with an

ordinary ammeter, knowing that

the ammeter reading is higher

than the reading with a 1500-ohm

Why all the fuss about the value of

the resistor?

Resistor Tolerance

Let us assume that we are again

measuring 0.5 milliampere of

leakage current from a 120-volt

product. Recall from the discus-

sion of resistor value, the source

impedance is 238.5 kilohms when

leakage current is 0.5 milliampere

and the current-sampling resistor

is exactly 1500 ohms.

In this case, assume the current-

sampling resistor is a 1500-ohm,

5% resistor. Let us further assume

that the resistor is at the low end

of its tolerance, -5%. The resistor

value therefore is 1425 ohms.

Using Ohm’s law, the current in

the circuit is:

E I = ———

R

120 I = —————————

238.5 k + 1.425 k

120 I = ———————

239.925 k

I = 0.5002 milliampere

The actual voltage across the

1425-ohm resistor is:

E = I x R

E = 0.5002 x 1425

E = 0.713 volts

If we now calculate the value of

Technically SpeakingContinued

resistor. If a manufacturer used

the ammeter and the actual limit

value, 0.5, 3.5 or 5.0 milliam-

peres, he would have a small

guard-band such that his measure-

ments would always be pessimis-

tic.

So, where only power-line fre-

quency appears in the leakage

current, why go to the trouble of

using the resistor? If it passes with

the ammeter, it will pass with the

resistor!Continued


leakage current using the nominalvalue of the resistor rather thanthe actual value, we get:

E I = ———

R

0.713 I = ———

1500

I = 0.475 milliampereThis is very nearly the same

error as the resistor tolerance, 5%.

Measuring CircuitsThe UL and IEC measuring

circuits are shown in Figure 2A.In a progression of figures, thecircuits are simplified to theiressential elements-ultimatelyshowing the equality of the ULand IEC circuits.

Figure 2B adds the source to theUL circuit as is already shown inthe IEC circuit. Note that the ULcircuit has its neutral grounded,while the IEC does not. The IECcircuit has the equipmentgrounded, while the UL does not.

Figure 2C deletes the groundfrom both the UL and the IECcircuits. Since there is only oneconnection to ground in bothcircuits, there can be no current inthe ground, so the grounding isextraneous to the measurement.

Figure 2D simplifies the ULcircuit by deleting the plug andsocket.

Figures 2E and 2F show the


Continued



normal and reverse polaritypositions, respectively, of theUL and IEC polarity switches.

CapacitorNext lets examine the effect ofthe 0.15 microfarad capacitor inparallel with the Current-samplingresistor. Capacitive reactance isgiven by:

1 X = ———————

2 x pi x f x C

1 X = —————————

2 x pi x 60 x 0.15E-6

X = 17.7 k ohms

The parallel network of 17.7 kand 1.5 k resolve to an impedanceof 1.38 k ohms. This is less than10% effect at 60 hertz.

The capacitor is useful onlywhen the leakage current includeshigh-frequency currents, whichthe capacitor serves to shuntaround the current-samplingresistor. If the capacitor is notused, then the measurement ishigher than it would be with thecapacitor.

ConclusionThe value of the current-samplingresistor in measuring leakagecurrent at power-line frequenciesis of negligible consequence tothe measurement. The use of anordinary ammeter will always

Continued


give a pessimistic and worst-casevalue for leakage current. If yourproduct has an acceptable leakagecurrent with an ammeter, then itwill have an acceptable leakagecurrent with the standard current-sampling measurement circuit.And, there is no difference be-tween the UL and IEC measuringcircuits. Perhaps furor and contro-versy are not necessary after all!

Your comments on this articleare welcome. Please address your-comments to the Editor, ProductSafety Newsletter, c/o TandemComputers, 2550 Walsh Ave.,Santa Clara, CA 95051.



The following is a Summary of a

presentation given on July 27,

1988, at a meeting of the Product

Safety Society, Northeastern

Chapter.

Some feel the solution to many

power extension cord fires is to

require them to be made with 16

AWG wire, theoretically making

the branch circuit breaker more

likely to open and the power cord

not get so hot when it is shorted.

Thus for about the last couple of

years, the National Electric Code

(NFPA-70) requirements are now

for 16 A WG wire extension cords

in the U.S. However, extensive

testing done at Philips Consumer

Electronics Co. and P.A.C.E.

Inc., has shown that the North

American branch circuit breakers

do not prevent electrical fault

shorted conditions which can

easily cause fires.

Contrary to popular belief, a

shorted power cord, or extension

cord, or nonmetallic sheathed

(NM) cable is usually not a

permanent or long duration

absolute dead short. When power

extension cords or NM cables are

shorted, short duration high

current pulses, three to six cycles

long, usually occur. Fire condi-

tions can be created with these

short duration high current pulses

with a breaker which essentially

never opens, whereas a fuse will

usually open and prevent the fire

Safety of Power Cords, Extension Cords andBranch Circuit BreakersD. Bruce Langmuir, Bose Corporation

condition. The current of these

short duration pulses is frequently

lower than the magnetic trip

current of North American branch

circuit breakers. The short dura-

tion current pulse occurs when the

power extension cord’s conduc-

tors or NM cable’s conductors

become shorted, then arc, and the

arc gets to the the temperature

where the copper fuses open, with

more than enough power at the

arc to start a fire. It can be years

after a power extension or NM

cable is pinched and damaged be-

fore it shorts and causes a fire.

Panel 4 of the 1987 National

Electric Code, NFP A- 70, Para-

graph 240-4, Exception No.3,

should thus be challenged. Circuit

breakers do not seem to be ade-

quately defined. North American

branch circuit breakers probably

need better specifications so they

will trip on these high current

short duration pulses caused from

shorted power cords, extension

cords and NM cables. The Euro-

pean IEC circuit breaker specifi-

cations better address the problem

of tripping open from these high

current short duration pulses.

Dave Carpenter, from Philips

Consumer Electronics Co., others

active in the EIA, R-1 Product

Safety Committee, and Frederick

(“Rick”) Franklin, owner of

Professional Analytical & Con-

suIting Engineers, Inc., (or

P.A.C.E., Inc.) have been trying

for many years to get some cor-

rective action on branch circuit

breakers, but as yet to no avail.

They have approached UL, CPSC,

NFP A, NEMA and the insurance

company persons. UL feels re-

search on this matter must be

done and sponsors identified

before any corrective action can

be made. A number of years ago,

Dave Carpenter’s staff made a 20-

minute VHS videotape of shorting

and burning 16 A WG line cords

that do not open circuit breakers;

this film was shown during the

meeting. This video shows a steel

channel, such as (may) be used

with metal furniture feet, cutting

an extension cord a number of

times, with the circuit breaker

tripping. It also shows a 16-AWG

extension cord shorting over fifty

times as it sits on burning card

board, never tripping a 20-amp

branch circuit breaker. Rick

Franklin is in the process of

having a professionally produced

video film made on the same

subject.

At the conclusion of this article

is a short article titled “Circuit

Breakers: Safety or Myth,”

written in August 1988 by Rick

Franklin. It summarizes the circuit

breaker problem and the charac-

teristics of a shorted extension

line cord.Continued


Both Dave Carpenter and Rick

Franklin have done extensive

work in this area. Together theyhave written several articles on

this subject They may be con-

tacted for additional informationat the following addresses:David L. CarpenterManager Product Safety & CompliancePhilips Consumer Electronics Co.1-40 and Straw Plains PikeP.O. Box 14810Knoxville. TN 37914-1810Phone: 615-521-4635Fax: 615-521-4891

Frederick F. (“Rick” ) Franklin Presi-dent P.A.C.E.. Inc.4325 Indeco CourtCincinnati. OH 45241

Phone: 513-793-2771; (No Fax)

Some feel the corrective actionwhich should be taken includes a

tighter requirement on the branch

circuit breakers. The peak currentof the breakers should be limited

to tripping open with 150-amp

peak current pulses. The Euro-pean IEC circuit breaker specifi-

cations and design with their

faster trip time of around 4 milli-seconds should be considered. If

the assumption in the NEC is

valid that the power cord is ofconcern, and if the breaker current

can be limited to 150-amp peak

with a magnetic trip time of 4milliseconds, then the NEC ex-

ception is correct, and a specifica-

tion change on the circuit breakeris required. This is more than just

a power cord problem.

The reaction of the 45 attendeesat the July 27, 1988, Product

Safety Society , Northeast Chapter

meeting, to the presentation sum-marized above and in the short at-

tached article by Rick Franklin,

was very positive in the need fortaking corrective action. All

attendees remarked that their

“eyes were opened” to the inade-quacy of branch circuit breakers,

and “how could anyone not

realize the severity of this prob-lem after seeing the video film.”

All felt a presentation with the

film and steel channel sampleshould be given to the other three

chapters of the Product Safety

Society around the U.S., andagain to key persons at the NFPA

and UL.

Attendees felt that if UL andNFPA does not start to take

corrective action soon, a petition

should be drawn up with correc-tive action to improve North

American circuit breaker specifi-

cations, signed by members of thefour chapters of the Product

Safety Society , and used in

lobbying with NFPA and UL tocorrect the problem. They also felt

the problem was not extension

cords or line cords, but it is thebranch circuit breakers, thus

indicating corrective action

should be taken for branch circuitbreaker specifications. I feel the

EIA, R-l Product Safety Commit-

tee should be part of this effort and

petition, and perhaps the co-ordinator, with guidance from

Dave Carpenter and Rick Fran-

klin.This is a potentially serious

safety issue that can affect all of

us in the electronics industry andneeds to be addressed. Perhaps if

we all understand the short circuit

problem and get together, neededcorrective action might be taken.

Comments concerning the above

article can be addressed to:

D. Bruce LangmuirManager, Product SafetyBose CorporationThe MountainFramingham, MA 01701;Phone: 508-879-7330;Fax: 508-872-6541.

“Circuit Breakers: Safety or Myth ?”Frederick F. Franklin, P. E.

Most North American circuit

breakers do not prevent short

circuit fires (and most fire investi-gators know it). This fact was the

lead sentence in an article pub-

lished in the NFP A Fire Journal in1984 by P.A.C.E., Inc. P.A.C.E.

has since quantified household

short circuit currents by burningthrough over 100 energized

cables. It found that virtually all

household short circuit currents

Safety of Power Cords, Extension Cords andBranch Circuit BreakersContinued

Continued


fall in the 150-400 ampere range

with most of them congregatingaround 200-250 amperes.

P.A.C.E. discovered that the short

circuit arc has its own significantresistance usually in the range of

0.1 ohm to 0.5 ohm. This and the

wiring resistance (up to 1.0 ohm)keep the arcing currents to these

low levels. Unfortunately, these

current ranges are below the quicktrip threshold of most North

American circuit breakers.

P.A.C.E. has measured thosemagnetic quick trip threshold

levels to be as follows for 15-

ampere circuit breakers:Brand A -120 to 180 amperes

Brand B -120 to 230 amperesBrand C -150 to 350 amperesBrand D -325 amperesBrand E -360 amperesBrand F -800 + amperesBrand G -800 + amperes

The magnetic quick trip levelsof 20-ampere circuit breakers are

correspondingly even higher.

Below the quick magnetic triplevel, a short circuit arc takes 1 to

3 seconds to trip the circuit

breakers, by heating its slow bi-metallic strip device. During this

time 10,000 joules (watt-seconds)

can be delivered to the arc.For decades European circuit

breakers have been manufactured

which nip magnetically or quickly

at 100 amperes or less (5x). The

photograph [not included here-Ed.] below shows the nine-turn

coil used to accomplish this, by

increasing the magnetic fieldinside the circuit breaker. The coil

also helps the circuit breaker to

trip in 0.004 seconds, beginning at100 amperes and extending

throughout the entire higher

current range. In the 150 to 400ampere household short circuit

range, the energy at the arc is thus

reduced to less than a few

hundred joules. (Don’t forget that

the circuit resistance of the wiring

absorbs much of the let-through

An estimated 100 Symposium

attendees stopped at the Product

Safety booth. Most took the

literature, were interested in the

Society , and many voiced the

opinion, in one way or another,

that a Product Safety Society will

be a great benefit to the profes-

sion. One man stated it clearly

and simply when he said “a

Product Safety Society in IEEE is

long overdue.” In addition, the re-

sponse of the EMC Society

members seemed quite positive

with respect to having the Product

Safety Society join as a Technical

Committee of the EMC Society .

We can expect a few new mem-

bers as a result of our efforts at

the booth. Two people left mem-

bership applications and a number

indicated that their applications or

a colleague’s application would

be forthcoming.

Many thanks to the IEEE EMC

Society for allowing us the booth

EMC Symposium Report

space, and to the Product Safety

members who manned the booth.

Manning the booth were, from the

Pacific Northwest chapter, Walt

Hart, Al VanHoudt, Bill Picatti,

Bijan Nafea and Joe Patterson;

and from the Santa Clara Valley

area, Gary Victorine and Pat

Coles.

Walt Hart

Membership Committee

(Seattle)

Safety of Power Cords, Extension Cords andBranch Circuit BreakersContinued

Continued


Pam Kawashima and Roger Volgstadt

The CSA Standard for Information Processing andBusiness Equipment becomes effective September 30,1988. As an aid to reviewing your company’s prod-ucts, the following questionnaire has been de-veloped. A positive response is meant to reflect therequirements of the standard. A “No” answer shouldalert you to a possible area of noncompliance with therequirements. Therefore, you can use this ques-tionnaire to review your products and quickly deter-mine those areas needing change to comply with thenew requirements. This questionnaire only coversrequirements that are more stringent than CSA 154.Relaxed requirements are not considered part of thefile review. Unless otherwise noted, a positive re-sponse to each question reflects the requirement ofthe CSA Standard 220-M1986, and TIL’s 9, 10,

Questionnaire for CSA220 File ReviewPam Kawashima and Roger Volgstadt

10A, 11, 12, 13, and 14.

This questionnaire reflects the understanding ofCSA's requirements by the authors. The authors donot assume any responsibility for errors in the ques-tionnaire or our misinterpretation of CSA's require-ments. Any questions should be directed to CSA.

Product: ___________________________________

Date:. _____________________________________

Reviewer:. _________________________________

Comments:- ________________________________

CSA 220 paragraphs are referenced in [brackets].

Y N NA Operator Access: If there are areas of the product which are user accessible by instructions only provided by the manufacturer (i.e., user accessible areas now includeareas that the manufacturer tells he user to enter, not just areas accessed without theuse of a tool), then [2.1]:Have these areas been evaluated for compliance with Protection from Electric Shock& Energy Hazards [4.2.7]?

Y N NA Ozone: If the product generates ozone (e.g., laser printer), do the installation instruc-tions caution the user about proper ventilation [3.4]?

Y N NA Enclosure Strength: If hand held, has the product or any hand-held portion thereofbeen subjected to the drop test of Clause 6.8.4 [4.2.4.3]?

Y N NA Protection from Shock/Energy Hazards (Side Vents): Are all uninsulated shock orenergy hazardous pans outside 5 degrees of side vents [4.2.7.5 (d)]?

Y N NA If no, is the side vent(s) one of the following:a) Less than or equal to 5 mm in any dimension OR Continued


b) Less than or equal to 1 mm in width ORc) Formed to deflect a falling object outward? (Shock or energy hazardous parts must

not be within 5 degrees of vent opening or vent must be a, b or c.)d) Be so located that an object entering the enclosure is unlikely to fall on uninsulated

live pans, resulting in shock or energy hazard [4.2. 7 .5c ] ?

Y N NA Panels within 5 Degrees: Are all fire hazardous components [4.2.2] and 94 V2 or HBmaterials outside 5 degrees of any panels [4.2. 7.6]?

Y N NA If not, then:a) Are the vents baffled as shown in Figure 5 [ 4.2.8.2a] ORb) Does the side enclosure material that is within 5 degrees pass the enclosure flame,hot wire ignition and high current arc tests ANDc) Are vents covered with acceptable screen (i.e., 14 x 14, 0.46 mm diameter or

accept-able perforated plate [Table 1]?

Y N NA Flammable Liquids: If the product uses flammable liquids, has the fire hazard beenreduced to a safe level and been tested to clause 6.8.5 [4.3.4]?

Y N NA Operator Access to Secondary Circuits: Is the operator prevented access to internalsecondary circuitry? If not, then (all must be y for compliance)

Y N NA a) Are instructions provided on how to remove and replace the enclosure [4.4.3.1]?Y N NA b) Do the accessible circuits comply with the temperature limits of Clause 6.4, Table 9,

Item 10?Y N NA c) Have operator-accessible connectors and/or card slots been overloaded as specified

in Clause 6.7.2.2 (e)?Y N NA d) Is operator-accessible secondary circuitry limited to <140 V A [4.4.3.2]?Y N NA e) Is the voltage in the operator-accessible area <42.4 V peak [4.4.3.2]? f)Y N NA f) Is the voltage source of operator-accessible secondary circuits wing:

i) A class 2 transformer (i.e., complies with CSA Standard C22.2 No.66) [4.4.3.2a]?

ii) A double insulated isolating transformer with a construction com-ply-ing with the construction and test requirements of Clause 7.4.3 [4.4.3.2b(i)]?

iii) An isolation transformer with a grounded shield between the primaryand other shock hazard secondary and the user-accessible secondary.[4.4.3.2b(ii)]?

iv) An isolation transformer with grounded secondary circuits where the

Questionnaire for CSA 220 File ReviewContinued


ground conductor has an ampacity equal to the ampacity of the trans-former supply conductors [4.4.3.2b(iii)]?

Y N NA Acoustic Pressure: If the product has a telephone receiver or handset, does the re-ceiver or handset comply with Clause 4.4 of CSA Standard C22.2 No.0. 7 [4.4.4]?

Y N NA Telecommunication Equipment: If the main function of the product is to be tele-communication equipment as described by the manufacturer’s marketing andadvertis-ing, has the product been evaluated to CSA Standard C22.2 No.0. 7?

Y N NA Disconnect Device: If the input to the system exceeds 12 A, is it provided with anappropriately rated circuit breaker or properly configured disconnect device[4.5.6.3]?

Y N NA Single Pole Devices in Ground Circuit: Are all ground circuits uninterrupted byany switch, control or overcurrent device [4.5.6.4]?

Y N NA Communication Cables: If the product is supplied with communication cables[4.6.8], are the cables:

Y N NA a) Using conductors at least 26 A WG copper ANDY N NA b) Tested to Clause 6.17 (mech) and 6.6.5 (Hi-Pot) ORY N NA c) Suitable for the application (CSA certified)?

(Communication cables are used to connect EDP equipment to a telecommunicationsnetwork.)

Y N NA Telecommunication Plugs and Jacks: If the product is designed to be connected toa telecommunication network, then [4.6.9]:

Y N NA Are the ancillary devices used to connect the product such as adapters, etc., providedwith the product?

Y N NA If not, does the manufacturer specify what can safely be used to connect the productto the phone lines [4.6.10]?

Primary Overcurrent Protection: Do all single pole protective devices connectedin the neutral comply with the following (4.11.1.3]:The overcurrent device:

Y N NA a) Is connected to a single pole plug ANDY N NA b) Is supplied from a 15 amp, 125 V or less circuit?Y N NA c) If a fuseholder, does not expose live parts?

The equipment using the single pole device:


Continued


Y N NA d) Is marked according to Clause 5.1.12?

Y N NA Separation of Primary and Telecommunication Circuits: If the product is con-nected to telecommunication circuits (4.14], has the isolation means provided be-tween the supply circuits and the telecommunication circuits been subjected to thedielectric strength test of Clause 6.6?

Y N NA Operator-Accessible Devices: If provided, are all operator-accessible receptacles oroption board slots provided with all of the following [5.1.6]:

Y N NA a) Are the receptacles and/or slots marked with the maximum allowable loadcurrent(s)?

Y N NA b) Has the product been tested with the maximum load current specified (i.e., tem-pera- ture and abnormal tests)?

Y N NA c) Are instructions provided to the operator explaining how to install the optionboards?

Y N NA Interconnecting Cables: Do the interconnecting cables in shock or energy hazardcircuits comply with the following:

Y N NA a) A tool necessary to disconnect the cable [4.6.3]?Y N NA b) A marking is provided which cautions the user to disconnect the power before open-

ing the cable connector [5.8]?

Y N NA User Accessibility: If the product is provided with user-accessible connectors, ports orcard slots for accessories, was the product temperature tested in a fully loadedconfiguration [6.2.4.2,6.4.4]?

Y N NA Dielectric Strength, Primary Circuit: Was the product primary circuit dielectricstrength tested to 1250 V AC (for 250 V or less systems) or 950 V + 1.2 x rated volts(for systems over 250 V) [6.6.2.2]?

Y N NA Dielectric Strength, Telecommunication Circuits: If the product has telecommunica-tion circuits, have the circuits been subjected to the 1000 VAC dielectric strength test[6.6.4]?



Lin Johnson’s recent (May andJune 1988) article on traceabilityof plastic materials to meet ULrequirements was very interesting.He did a good job of focusing onseveral UL traceability issues.

There are a couple of other as-pecks of traceability that were notdiscussed. One has to do with theclassification of plastic materialsand the other with the options fortraceability during UL FUSinspections. We have bumpedinto these in working with UL ineither our component or productcertification activities. I wouldlike to explore these here.

We will explore these in thecontext of proof of complianceoptions for polymeric materials.

First, there is one particularclass of materials that gets specialtreatment by UL. This includesmaterials with a long history ofuse where problems have notarisen over time. These are calledgeneric materials. They include:slate, porcelain, phenolic, cold-molded composition, unfilledpolycarbonate, unfilled nylon,nylon filled with inorganic com-pounds, melamine, melamine-phenolic, or urea-formaldehyde orother similar materials.

We have organized this discus-sion so as to address both genericand named classes of materials, asis usually done by UL. We be-lieve generic materials should

always be separated from namedspecific materials when dealingwith UL.

Generic materials have a longhistory of acceptance by UL. TheUL rationale for generic materialstraceability was openly describedin a UL 478 IAG. In the January15, 1985, meeting, the IAG ac-knowledged the universal accep-tance of these generic materialsby inspection without any specifictraceability required. Althoughgeneric materials were describedat an EDP IAG meeting, the ULphilosophy of acceptance is in amore universal sense and not tiedto any specific product categoryaccording to the description givenby the UL personnel. Our experi-ence is that not very many ULpersonnel understand genericmaterials; some object to considerallowing using this method ofseparation. Reference to the afore-mentioned discussion within theIAG is your best anchor point.

On the other hand, any otherpolymeric materials require atraceability back to the UL Rec-ognized Component Index (yel-low book) or equivalent. Theseare referred to as named plasticmaterials.

Because of this separation ofmaterials, we believe the follow-ing separation should be madepart of the Section General forany files which require traceabili-

ty of plastic materials.Generic Materials: Proof of

Compliance for Generic Poly-meric Pans or Materials.

Plastics described in a genericway are accepted by physicalinspection. (This is a key concept;UL/ FUS inspectors should notpursue traceability.)

The following materials areusually described generically:slate, porcelain, phenolic, cold-molded composition, unfilledpolycarbonate, unfilled nylon,nylon filled with inorganic com-pounds, melamine, melamine-phenolic, or urea-formaldehyde.

Other materials may be de-scribed in this generic way andare intended to be accepted in thesame manner. Any additionalmaterials that are agreed to begeneric will have to be listed toqualify.

Named Materials: Proof ofCompliance for Named PolymericParts or Materials.

Plastics described in this namedway are Recognized ComponentPlastics (QMFZ2). Acceptance ofany named material is by tracea-bility to the basic material ascalled out in the RecognizedComponent Directory , Compo-nent Recognition Reports oryellow cards which ensures thatthe material is appropriate asrequired by the UL/FUS report.

Traceability of PlasticsPeter Perkins, P. E., Manager,Corporate Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs

Continued


energy.) This would prevent

almost all North American short

circuit fires, which account for

roughly 20% or $1 billion of fire

loss every year, in the experience

of P.A.C.E. This loss is great

enough to justify the replacement

of all North American circuit

breakers, in our opinion. The coil

reportedly adds only $0.30 to the

cost of manufacture.

This is the usual UL method oftraceability.

Careful segregation of materialsin this way will simplify proof ofcompliance for the manufacturer.You will need to work with bothUL Engineering and UL/FUS tosuccessfully introduce genericmaterials into your plastics com-pliance program.

Moving on, the second generalpoint for discussion here includestraceability options. We believethat there are more traceabilityoptions than are usually presentedeither by UL or manufacturers.Options for traceability give themanufacturer some flexibility indemonstrating compliance duringFUS inspections. We have identi-fied the following list of traceabil-ity options.•UL molder’s program dataavailable accompanying eachshipment of parts from themolder.•Physical trace back throughmolding process to the material.Works best when the moldingprocess is located physically closeto the use area.•Parts uniquely marked as de-scribed in the UL/FUS report.Probably would include as muchof the molder’s data as could bemarked on the parts including theuser’s part number identification.Qualified supplier to this manu-facturer. This may include a split

inspection at the supplier’s site.Certificate of conformance fromthe supplier, as described in LinJohnson’s article.•Part supplier’s catalog specifiesmaterial for identified manufac-turer’s part number. Especiallyimportant for commodity items,e.g., cardguides, bumpers, feetand decorative items.•Manufacturer’s lab analysisshowing material identification.Assuming correlation could beshown between the manufac-turer’s lab data and UL’s lab data.Lab analysis being, of course, oneof the more expensive options.•Sample to UL for lab identifica-tion of material. If none of theabove records are available, asample would be forwarded to theUL lab for analysis.

We’ve included as many tracea-bility options on the list as webelieve should be available to amanufacturer. We would be inter-ested in others we may havemissed. We’ve given considera-tion to some special cases, e.g.,identification marks on smallparts where they could not containall the desired information, sup-plier identification of materials forcommonly available items, etc.What other considerations shouldbe made?

It’s not as obvious as to howthese options should be allowed.Manufacturers should insist on

them appearing in the SectionGeneral of their FUS file ratherthan in UL’s instructions to theirinspectors, which are not gener-ally available.

In Summary, separating genericmaterials from named materialsplus allowing for as many tracea-bility options as possible shouldallow the manufacturer of either acomponent or product as muchlatitude as possible in meetingUL’s requirements.

Safety of Power Cords,Extension Cords andBranch Circuit BreakersContinued from page 9


VDT StandardAfter three attempts, SuffolkCounty , N. Y ., passed legislationregarding the ergonomics andwork practices of video displayterminals (VDTs). The countyresolution applies to equipmentleased, rented, or purchased afterJanuary 1, 1990. It will be appli-cable to companies with morethan 20 employees operatingterminals more than 26 hours aweek.

The law entitles workers to anannual eye examination, with thecompany paying 80 percent ofthe examination fee and the costof eyeglasses the operator mayrequire for work on the terminal.The law also makes provisionsfor adjustable workstations,chairs, detachable keyboards,copy holders, nonglare lighting,and covers to reduce noise ofimpact printers.

The law has provisions tied topregnancy, and work breaks ifoperating the terminal more thanthree hours.

National Electrical CodeDecisionThe Standard Council held a hear-ing and denied the complaint ofCBEMA with regard to the effec-tive date for 725-38 (b)(I) and770-6 (a) of the 1987 edition ofthe NFP A 70. The decision of thecouncil noted that the two years

Product Safety News and Notes

was allotted for the issuance ofthe requirement to the effectivedate of July 1, 1988, for the re-quirement of limited power cablesto be fIre resistant as specified inthe aforementioned sections. Inaddition, the council noted that90-4 of the NEC makes provi-sions for custom cables for whichalternative products are not yetavailable.

International Product SafetyNewsA newsletter devoted to productsafety compliance entitled "Inter-national Product Safety News" ispublished by Product SafetyInternational on a subscriptionbasis. For further information,contact the editor,Mr. A. MichaelP.O.Box 1561Middletown. CT 06457-1561.

[The newsletter is not related to norendorsed by the Product Safety Tech-nical Committee of the IEEE.--Ed.]

Nonlinear Loads SeminarPete Perkins, manager of Corpo-rate Product Safety and Regula-tory Affairs at Tektronix hasbrought to our attention thefollowing seminar:

The seminar , entitled "Effectsof Nonlinear Loads on the Power-Distribution System and AttachedEquipment, " deals with the

external effects of using large (ormany small) switching powersupplies in industrial installations.There are some serious implica-tions from misunderstanding theinstallation requirements in whichthe loads are used. In some casesthere has been substantial over-heating of installed wiring andequipment The two-day seminar,September 28 and 29, 1988, willbe held at the University ofWisconsin and will include thefollowing topics:•Switchmode Power Conversionin Data Processing Equipment,

• Effect on Nonlinear Loads onthe Power Distribution System,

• Utility Power Requirements forData Processing Equipment,

• True RMS Circuit Breakers

• Neutral and Grounding in theComputer Room,

• NEC True RMS vs. A verageResponse Type Instrumentation.


Santa Clara Valley Area ReportThe August meeting of the SantaClara Valley Chapter began witha review of the Product Safety So-ciety quest for IEEE affiliation.Rich Pescatore announced thatbeginning August 1, 1988, theProduct Safety Society is now anofficially sanctioned TechnicalCommittee under the auspices ofthe IEEE EMC Society. As aresult, the Product Safety Societywill now be known as the “Prod-uct Safety Technical Committee”and no longer called the ProductSafety Society, until we havereached Society status within theIEEE.

Rich outlined the processes in-volved in becoming a TechnicalCouncil of the IEEE, and eventu-ally becoming a Product SafetySociety of the IEEE.

Jim Duckett, the chairman ofthe Santa Clara Valley Chapter ofthe EMC Society, welcomed thegroup into the IEEE, and offeredhis help in the formation of theTechnical Committee.

Rich then announced that ScottBarrows, chairman of the Mem-bership Committee, was goingback to school, and that as a resulthe had to resign his position ofcommittee chairman. The PSSwould like to thank Scott for allhis efforts in making the PSS asuccess. Kevin Ravo has volun-

teered to replace Scott as Mem-bership Committee chainman.

The night’s topic was “SystemSafety ,” presented by Brian Claes(SCV program chainman of Tan-dem Computers. Brian illustratedthe benefits of using the “systemsafety” approach to productsafety. Forty attendees enjoyedand learned from his presentation,especially the disk drive cart casestudy.

The next meeting will be Sep-tember 27, 1988, at 7 :00 p.m. atApple Computer in Cupertino,20525 Mariani Ave., on the comerof De Anza Blvd. Gust south ofHwy. 280). The topic for the nextmeeting will be “Euro-peanProduct Liability.” The specialguest speaker will be Dr. RuthRedden of Fluke.

Rick BuckPublicity Chairman

Colorado Area ReportThe next National EMC Sympo-sium will be held in the Denver,Colo., area in May 1989, and thepossibility of having a ProductSafety session during the sympo-sium is being investigated. Thoseinterested in assisting in thedevelopment of the session orattending one should contactSteve Tarket. Steve is also thelocal contact for individuals in the

Denver area interested in startingtheir own Product Safety meet-ings.

Steve Tarket (M/S 65)c/o Hewlett-Packard3404 E. Harmony Rd.Ft Collins, CO 80525Phone: 303-229-2481;Fax: 303-229-2692

Upstate New York Area ReportThose interested in a ProductSafety Chapter in the upstate areaof New York are encouraged tocontact the following individual:

Dave Edmunds (M/S 843)c/o Xerox Carp.800 Phillips Rd.Webster, NY 14580Phone: 716-422-2380Fax: 716-422-7841

Florida Area ReportMichael Hatch is the latest personto join our list of local contacts.Please pass the word to colleaguesin the Tampa area to call Mike ifthey are interested in meetinglocally. Contact:

Michael Hatchc/o Innovative Industries, Inc.5909-C Hampton Oaks Pkwy.

Area Activity Reports

Continued


Tampa, FL 33610Phone: 813-621-7855Fax: 813-623-2229

Southern California AreaReportNo meeting has been held sincethe last issue of the newsletter.Charlie Bayhi reports that the nextmeeting will be held on Monday,October 3, 1988, at MAI BasicFour, Inc. The meeting will startat 1:00 p.m. and feature Dr. JamesA. Roseboro, an investigator withthe FDA. Dr. Roseboro will speakon laser safety. Questions aboutthe meeting or the chapter ingeneral can be directed to:Charlie Bayhi,Phone: 714-730-2556Fax: 714-730-2380.

Charlie Bayhi, ChairmanSouthern California Area

Northwest Area ReportAs we all know by now, we arethe Technical Committee onProduct Safety, affiliated with theIEEE EMC Society. The nextmeeting of the Northwest Chapterwill be held on Thursday, October20, not October 18 as reportedearlier.

The meeting topic will be Inter-national Power Line Configura-tions and Components. Productsafety engineers from Japan,Holland and the U.K. will be there

to discuss both three-phase indus-trial and single-phase commercialapplications. In addition to thesespeakers, the Chapter officershave obtained a commitment fromBob Wallace of Tektronix tospeak on the measurement ofleakage currents. Bob is on theIEC committee, IEC TC74/WG5,which has a pilot responsibility inthis area. Also, we are expectingNEMKO to provide us a speakerall the way from Oslo, Norway!The following is the agenda:I :00 Welcome & Introduction ofSpeakersGary Mclnturff1:10 Chairman’s RemarksRichard NuteI :20 U K .Ring Circuits andFused PlugsPhilip TradgettI :40 Netherlands Mains CircuitsAb Kars2: 10 Japanese Mains Circuitsand PlugsYoshio Yamada2:30 Norwegian Mains CircuitsB. Myrvollen/L. Nybro3: 30 Abnormal AC SupplyVoltagesSteve Miller4:15 IECMethod of MeasuringLeakage CurrentBob Wallace6:00 No-Host Dinner(location to be determined atmeeting)

This meeting will be hosted by

Mr. Peter Perkins of Tektronix inBeaverton, Oreg. The meetingwill be held in the Tektronixauditorium at the Wilsonvillefacility south of Portland--rightoff 1-5. To get to the auditorium(building 60), take the Staffordexit off of 1-5 coming from thenorth, cross over the freeway, andgo south on Parkway until you getto the Tektronix campus. Followthe signs from there to building60. Pete Perkins can be reachedat 503-627 -1815 for any furtherinformation. Please send an RSVPto Susan Turner of Tektronix at503-627-2389 for both the meet-ing and the dinner so proper ar-rangements can be made.

Al Van HoudtProduct Safety Engineer

Northeastern Area ReportNo Product Safety meeting washeld in August in the Northeastarea. However, plans are nowbeing made for the next meetingon September 28, 1988. Dash,Straus and Goodhue, Inc., willhost this meeting, starting at 7:00p.m The topic and speaker arestill being determined. Membersof the Northeastern area will benotified by a separate mailing offurther details.

Jim Norgaard, ChairmanNortheast Area

Area Activity ReportsContinued


The following is the third in a series of articles meant to aid you in your work with the various agencies.This month, we offer a roster of the CSA Pacific Region Office Staff. As before, we look forward to receiv-ing input from you, especially what improvements you would like to see, and what agencies you want in-cluded in future articles.

Canadian Standards AssociationEngineering Staff

Name Product Types

Michael Tam, Senior Engineer

Brij Aggarwal Process Control Equipment, Signal Appliances Transformers, Elec-tronic Equipment, Industrial Control Equipment

Orest Ewanchyna Laboratory Equipment, Test Equipment, MedicalTed Sylka Equipment, X-Ray Equipment

Sebasrian George Cleaning Machines, Commercial Cooking Equipment,Paul Chan Electric Fittings, Electric Heaters, ElectronicWalter Zatylny Equipment, Fans & Ventilators, Food Preparing Machines, Industrial

Control Equipment, Light Fixtures, Motor-Operated Equipment, Proc-ess Control Equipment, Sewing Machines, Signs & Displays, WiringDevices, Cosmetic & Hygiene Products, Pumps, Motors & Generators

Gordon Brand Special Acceptance, Special Inspection ServicesGeorge WardDoug HannBrad SullivanShawn Fawcett

Jim de Vries, Senior Engineer

Mark Havlasek Electronic Data Processing Equipment, OfficeRick LeBlanc Power Supplies, Custom Rectifier, Scales, PPPEBill Lowe (Photo, Printer, Paper Equipment)

For Your Information

Certification Agencies, Part III

Continued


Egon Varju

David Finley

Fabio Furlan

Jim Nunes

Jeff Pasternak

Keith PoulinGrant ScJunidbauer

Customer Services Staff

Name Title

Larry Ruck SupervisorRoss Hayhoe Coordinator-Project Status, Technical SupportAnn Lumb Application AppraiserJim Louie Application AppraiserKaren Calabrese Administrative AssistantSusan Eissler Standard Sales

For Your InformationContinued


Letters to the editor

InfightingCongratulations to all involved onyour work in getting the ProductSafety Society to the point whereit is now IEEE affiliated.

The Product Safety Society (orwhatever name it ends up with)could be a valuable forum fordissemination of new require-ments to veteran safety engineersand a perfect place to instructthose new to the field in thepitfalls and the nuances in thevarious Standards we use to doour work.

Please note that I said “couldbe.” I believe the only way toeffectively train and disseminateinformation is to present it in anoncombative, friendly style,where everyone is allowed to askquestions and all questions will begiven thoughtful answers. Itshould be understood that instruc-tion to new comers is essential inorder that the PSS can grow. Inaddition, the newsletter would bean ideal place to note new orchanging requirements in Stan-dards of interest to the readership.

The Dr. Z-type articles, whosechief purpose is to convincereaders that the author knows itall, are of little benefit. Neither

The following letters were received since our last edition of the Product Safety Newsletter. The editor re-serves the right to edit letters to fit the available space. Opinions expressed are those of the authors anddo not necessarily represent those of the newsletter staff or the Product Safety Technical Committee ofthe IEEE EMC Society.

are the overly technical articleswhich do not really tell the reader-ship why the agencies have madea requirement, but whose mainconcern is again some what authorego-driven. (Reference to theexcellent HP Journal will showthat technical topics can beaddressed in a nontechnicalmanner.)

It is of no value whatsoever tothe product safety engineer in thefield to know how stupid or un-necessary published requirementsare; he needs to know why theagency requires the product to bebuilt that way. And there isalways a reason. The main taskproduct safety engineers have isto train other company membersin the ways to build product inaccordance with agency regula-tions. The ONLY way to do thisis to convince these other peoplethat there is a reason, and amethod, to the requirements.

Articles that undermine pub-lished agency requirements haveno place in the PSS newsletter.The forum for this type of articleis IAC meetings or the like wherethe agencies themselves are

involved.In closing, please note that I am

an interested bystander and onlythrowing in my two cents worth.However, I am completely sincereand serious about the pointsabove. You have a great start.You need new readership and youabsolutely need the support of theagencies to become a voice. Theonly way to obtain these goals isto change the tone of the newslet-ter and make it a positive force inthe Safety field.

Jeffrey LindSafety SpecialistProduct Verification Specialists

Oops Department

There was one error in the Augustissue which I would like to clar-ify. The wording on page 10regarding TUV Rheinland- West-falischer (note correct spelling---TUV Rheinisch-Westfalischer) ismisleading as it seems to suggestthat if a customer is using theservices of TUV Essen theywould automatically receive a

Continued


TUV Rheinland approval. This iscertainly not correct.

There is a major difference be-tween which TUV agency youchoose in the U.S. The most com-monly used, and most well knownand represented in the U.S., andaccepted by all TUVs worldwide,is TUV Rheinland. This is not thecase with TUV America or TUVEssen. For instance, neither TUVEssen nor TUV America are listedin the Equipment Safety Law(GSG dated July 24, 1968, or theupdated version August 13,1980)as recognized test agencies underthose names. A partial list of thefirst five of the 40 agencies is asfollows:# 1 VDE# 2 TUV RHEINLAND# 3 TUV Hannover# 4 TUV Berlin# 5 TUV Bayern

We would appreciate your mak-ing the corrections. If you haveany questions, please contact me.

Laszlo P. HasenauGeneral ManagerTUV Rheinland of N.A., Inc.

As indicated on the attachedcopies, typographical errors weremade in the July edition (page 11)of the Product Safety Newsletter.Here are the corrections:

Main Office: Danbury, CTDr. Klaus Spiegel

Judith Ann Colombo

Laszlo P. Hasenau

David Lohbeck

Dr. Steven Kraemer

Thank you for your attention tothis matter.

Laszlo P. HasenauGeneral ManagerTUV Rheinland of N.A., Inc.

[The editor apologizes for the errors inspelling the above individuals’ names.We encourage our readers to correct theircopy of the newsletter so that our errorsare not perpetuated.---Ed.]

The Ideal Standards Commit-tee—Conclusion[The following is the second half of atwo-pan Letter to the Editor. Due to lackof space, we had to delay the completionof the letter until this issue.---Ed.]

To assist managers in makingcommittee attendance productivefor their organizations, here aresome guidelines for committeemembership:

I. Funding and support from thesupporting company

This should not be taken lightly.

Committee representation willrequire at least three trips per yearPLUS preparatory and debriefingtime.

The supporting company shouldfully understand both the traveland time commitment to which itbecomes committed when it pro-vides a committee representative.

The supporting company mustrecognize that the individual’s jobchanges when he takes on com-mittee membership. The jobdescription should be rewritten sothat the committee activity be-comes a part of the job itself,rather than an activity outside theindividual’s regular duties. Like-wise, committee activity shouldbe provided with a budget.

Anything less than this results inmeeting-by-meeting decisions asto individual attendance. As such,committee membership becomesone of being an informationgatherer and reporter rather than acontributor. Many, many compa-nies operate in this manner;members attend, but cannot makeany contributions because it is notin their job descriptions, and theycannot guarantee they will attendthe next meeting.

The committee itself cannot beeffective where members cannotbe full members because of vari-able company support. Too manyindustry committees are already

Letters to the EditorContinued

Continued


characterized by such member-ship. Let’s not continue thisproblem.

Committee membership shouldbe a MANAGED activity just asany other part of the job. It shouldbe subject to ALL of the implica-tions that go along with thatassertion.

2. Objectives of committee mem-bership and meeting attendance

Just as with any other part of ourjob, we should set forth theseveral objectives of committeemembership or meeting atten-dance.

In some cases, simply being areporter will be acceptable. Insome cases, being a criticizer ordevil’s advocate will be accept-able. But, neither of these can beacceptable committee perform-ance for the long run. They bothrely on somebody else providingthe material which is reported,criticized, or devil’s advocated.

I would assume that the objec-tive of any committee member-ship is to contribute proposalswhich accomplish thecommittee’s objectives. Or, ifmembership includes chairman-ship, then the objective is toprovide leadership to accomplishthe committee’s objectives---especially by drawing forth spe-

cific proposals from membership.

3. Qualifications

Given the preceding, then theindividual selected by both thecommittee and the company toparticipate on any committee musthave the technical expertise ANDthe ability to put forth his techni-cal expertise in the form of writ-ten proposals.

This implies researching to formthe proposals, testing the propos-als, adjusting the proposals toaccount for technical and editorialcriticism, and presenting theproposals in a manner appropriatefor the particular committee. Italso implies advocacy of certainpositions and defending thoseagainst criticism. In some cases,this implies maintaining a minor-ity opinion in the face of majorityopinion.

Another very significant activityis the criticism of others’ propos-als. Almost always, this implies acounter-proposal and the researchaccompanying such counter-proposal.

Working within a committeeinvolves strategy to get proposalsaccepted and strategy to success-fully accomplish criticism.

Thus, qualifications not onlyinclude technical, writing, andmeeting presence”, qualifica-

tions IMPLY imagination, a driveto get things “right, “ assertive-ness, a drive to contribute to thework of the committee, a stronglyheld belief in the work of thecommittee, and some degree ofleadership.

Representing a company meansthat interested parties within thecompany are kept informed ofcommittee activities, and thatinterested company parties haveample time to make their viewsknown on the various issues ofthat committee and on companyproposals to that committee.

4. The committee’ s membershipcriteria

Committees should establishcriteria for membership, both forcompany support and for individ-ual qualification. A committeeshould not just accept any warmbody. Before a committee acceptsa member, it should study theprospective member’s resume,interview the member, and deter-mine whether the member’sorganization will provide thenecessary support such as pre-paratory time, research time,tools, secretarial support, etc.


Continued


5. Committee objectives

Committees should set forththeir goals and objectives. Theseshould be stated for each meetingas well as for the long range.

Sponsoring organizations andindividual member organizationsshould get annual reports as toaccomplishments and new andfuture objectives.

Committees should be preparedto disband or requalify membersas objectives are accomplishedand new objectives are decided.

6. Meeting plans

Committees must also set forththeir meeting plans so that mem-bers’ companies can budget andplan their support. Each meetingshould have an agenda, andshould have specific objectives.Members should be able to decideto attend or not based on themeeting plan and whether or notindividual members will contrib-ute to the meeting. Committeesshould have a tangible output; inthe case of safety standards work,the output is almost always adocument of some sort.

With best regards from the PacificNorthwest,Richard Nute

IEEE Product Safety SocietyIt was a pleasure to meet you(Rich Pescatore) yesterday at theEMC conference and to learnmore about the newly proposedProduct Safety Society. Walt Hartintroduced your society to theSeattle EXCOM early this year.At that time, we agreed to supportyou in any way we could.

I am circulating copies of JohnMcBain’s July 8 letter to DonClark and your July message toseveral people. My intent is to letpeople know what is going on.

I vaguely recall a product safetygroup being pan of IndustryApplication Society at one time.Perhaps IAS should supportProduct Safety in their efforts toform a technical council. I’ll deferto Pete Morley on this.

Please let us know if there isanything the Seattle Section ofEXCOM can do to help you inyour efforts.

Erling HeslaChairmanSeattle Section, IEEE


Safety of Power Cords, Exten-sion Cords, and Branch CircuitBreakersJim Norgaard, Chairman of theProduct Safety Society , NortheastChapter, from Dash, Straus andGoodhue, has informed me ofyour interest in the safety ofpower cords, extension cords andbranch circuit breakers. Since Jimformed the Northeast Chapter, Ihave been very active with thatgroup and greatly appreciate howwe have been mutually assistingeach other .I appreciate receivingthe newsletter from your SantaClara Valley Chapter, and amgratified how networking in ourSociety has gone national.

D. Bruce LangmuirManager, Product Safety andComplianceBOSE Corporation

[please refer to me article by D. BruceLangrnuir in this issue formore information about the abovesubject-Ed.)


Rich Pescatore-National ChairmanHewlett-Packard (MS 42LS)19447 Pruneridge Ave.Cupertino, CA 95014408-447-6607

Roger Volgstadt-Communications(Product Safety Newsletter)Tandem Computers Incorporated2550 Walsh Ave.Santa Clara, CA 95051408-748-2102

(Fax 408-748-2137)

Santa Clara Valley AreaOfficers and Committees:Rich Pescatore-ChairmanHewlett-Packard (MS 42LS)19447 Pruneridge Ave.Cupertino, CA 95014408-447-6607

Brian Claes-Vice-Chairman/Pro-gramsTandem Computers Incorporated19333 Vallco Pkwy.Cupertino, CA 95014408-725-5173

John McBain-Sec/TreasurerHewlett-Packard (MS 42LS)19447 Pruneridge Ave.Cupertino, CA 95014408-447-0738

Kevin Ravo-MembershipUnderwriters Laboratories Inc.1655 Scott Blvd.Santa Clara, CA95050-4169408-985-2400 ext. 2311

Mike Harris-ConstitutionTeccom Co.699 Baffin StreetFoster City , CA 94404415-345-9403

Rick Buck-PublicityElliot Associates8971ndependence Ave.Mt. View I CA 94043415-967-7315

Pacific Northwest AreaOfficers and Committees:Rich Nute-ChairmanHewlett-PackardP.O. Box G-006Vancouver, WA 98668206-254-8110 ext. 2691

Gary Mclnturff-Vice-Chairman/ProgramsISG Systems Corp.E. 22425 ApplewayLiberty Lake, WA 99019509-927-5105

AI Van Houdt-Sec./TreasurerSpaceLabs4200 150th Ave. N.E.P.0. Box 97013Redmond, WA 98073

Walt Hart-Membership(Seattle area)John Fluke Mfg. Co. Ltd.P.0. Box C9090Everett, WA 9820698206 206-356-5177

Art Henderson-Membership (Portland area)Western Transformers6701 S.E. Alberta St.Portland, OR 97206503-777-5636

Northeast Area Officersand Committees:Jim Norgaard-ChairmanDash Straus & Goodhue593 Massachusetts Ave.Boxborough, MA 01719617-263-2662

(other officers to be elected)

Los Angeles Area Officersand Committees:Charles Bayhi-chairmanMAI Basic Four Inc. (#303)14101 Myford RoadTustin, CA 92680714-730-2556

Rolf Burckhardt-Vice-Chairman9420 Reseda Blvd.Suite 800Northridge, CA 91324818-368-2786

Ercell Bryant-ProgramsFileNet3565 Harbor Blvd.Costa Mesa, CA 92626714-966-3459

Product SafetyTechnical CommitteeOfficers andCommittees:


Monday, October 3Southern California ChapterSubject: Laser SafetySpeaker: Dr. Roseboro, FDATime: 1:00 p.m.Location: MAI Basic FourContact: Charlie Bayhi, 714-730-2556

Thursday, October 20

Pacific Northwest ChapterSubject: ln1ernational Power InfoSpeaker: VariousTime: 1:00 -5:00 p.m.Location: Tektronix, Beaverton, ORContact: Susan Turner, 503-627-2389

(RSVP requested)

Tuesday, October 25Santa Clara Valley ChapterSubject: TBD Speaker: TBDTime: 7:00 p.m.Location: Apple Computer

20525 Mariani Ave.Cupertino, CA

Contact: Rick Buck, 415-967-4166

Wednesday, October 26Northeastern Chapter

Subject: TBD

Speaker: TUV RheinlandTime: 7:00 p.m.Location: Sheraton Boxborough

Intersection 495/111Boxborough, Mass.

Contact: Jim Norgaard, 508-263-2662

CALENDAR The Product Safety Society

Date post:	27-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

In this issue Page Product - IEEEewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/Downloads/newsletters/88v01n8.pdfis, like...

Documents