a testing facility perspective on harmonized ee risk...
TRANSCRIPT
___________________________________________________________________________
2012/SCSC/WKSP/011
A Testing Facility Perspective on Harmonized EE Risk Assessment
Submitted by: Dekra
Workshop on Developing a Harmonised Electrical Equipment Regulatory Risk
Assessment ToolSingapore
15-16 May 2012
1
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
A Testing Facility Perspective on Harmonized EE Risk Assessment
Dr. Michael Siedentop
APEC Joint Regulatory Advisory Committee
Page 1 © 2012 DEKRA
APEC Joint Regulatory Advisory CommitteeElectrical and Electronic Equipment Workshop
Developing a Harmonised Electrical Equipment Regulatory Risk Assessment ToolSingapore, 15th – 16th May 2012
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Contents
Benefits of Harmonized Standards Global vs. European Standardization Standardization and Certification in the P. R. China A View on Risk Assessment and Tools Conclusion
Page 2 © 2012 DEKRA
2
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
What are the economic benefits of standardization?
Page 3 © 2012 DEKRA
(as per DIN study "Economic Benefits of Standardization", updated 2011).
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
How does harmonization of standards help businesses?
R&D investment
Mass productionGlobal purchasing Lower transaction costs Reduced adjustment costs Shorter development timesCompany
success
investment success
Cost reduction
Improved image in
Lower liability
Access to new
markets
Page 4 © 2012 DEKRA
image in general
Improved customer relations
liability exposure
3
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Cornerstones of Export Strategy
What are the cornerstones of export strategy (business survey results from the joint research project “Economic benefits of standards”)?• Use European and International standards (84%)• Set up factories in the economy of importation (13 %)Set up factories in the economy of importation (13 %) • Conclude delivery contracts in the economy of importation (7 %).
Michael Glos, Federal Minister, Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (until 2009)
Page 5 © 2012 DEKRA
Dr. Thomas Enders, European Aeronautic Defenceand Space Company (EADS)
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Perspective of Testing Facilities
Harmonized standards and conformance procedures improve the efficiency of testing and certification
Factory AuditsTesting Certification
Administration, IT SystemsCost DriversWorkgroups
Page 6 © 2012 DEKRA
Accreditation Accreditation Audits
Training of Employees
4
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Global Standards Organizations
Standardization System in Europe
SO C
WTO
ITURecognizes
RecommendsPractices
European Standards Organizations (ESO)
CENELEC ETSICEN
ISO IECUN ITU
EU
National Standards Bodies: DIN, AFNOR, BSI, …
Vienna Agreement, Dresden Agreement
Recognizes
Recognizes
ReleasesDirectives
Page 7 © 2012 DEKRA
National Standards Bodies: DIN, AFNOR, BSI, …Nat. Committees: DKE (DIN/VDE), UTE, BSI, …
Members (companies, associations, public authorities)
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
CEN Member States
Page 8 © 2012 DEKRA
MembersAffiliatesPartner standardization bodies
5
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
CENELEC Member States
Page 9 © 2012 DEKRA
MembersAffiliates
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
ETSI Member States
Page 10 © 2012 DEKRA
Full MembersAssociate MembersObservers
6
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
China-EU/EFTA Standardization Information Platform (CESIP)
In 2009 CEN, CENELEC and ETSI signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China (SAC)China (SAC).
This agreement provides a framework for regular and coordinated exchange of information at corporate and technical level.
CESIP launched in 2009. Information tool that aims at strengthening the mutual trade
between Europe and China Website with information in English and Chinese Current and upcoming standards and related technical regulations
Page 11 © 2012 DEKRA
p g g Sectors:
• electrical equipment• medical devices• Machinery• environmental protection.
The platform is available at http://www.eu-china-standards.eu/.
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Standards System and Policy in China
Classification of standards for the Chinese electrical industry
N ti l t d d• National standards• Professional standards• Provincial standards • Enterprise standards
For the electrical industry, the national and professional standards are applicable and have binding effect on the entire industry.
Page 12 © 2012 DEKRA
The national standards (GB) are administrated by the Standardization Administration of China (SAC) and developed by the National Professional Standardization Techniques Commission whose establishment was approved by SAC.
7
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Standards System and Policy in China
National standards (GB) can be further divided into three categories.
There are two major standardization administration bodies associated with the electrical industry: • China Machinery Industry Federation (CMIF)• China Electrical Equipment Industry Association
Mandatory standards(GB)
Recommended standards (GB/T)
Page 13 © 2012 DEKRA
q p y(CEEIA).
Technical guides for national standards (GB/Z).
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Adoption of International Standards in China
Target 2020:Adopting international standards at a rate of over 90%
Feb. 2011 (End of the “11th five-year” planning period):Adopting international standards at a rate of 85%
End of 2007 (electrical industry):1,222 national standards, thereof 890 standards had adopted the international standards
Page 14 © 2012 DEKRA
had adopted the international standards
End of 2001 (electrical industry): 1,097 national standards, thereof 661 standards had adopted the international standard
8
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Compulsory Certification System in China
• Products related to
h man health and sec rit• human health and security• life and health of animals and plants • environmental protection • public security.
• AQSIQ formulates national rules and regulations
• Catalogue of Products issued by AQSIQ
Page 15 © 2012 DEKRA
Catalogue of Products issued by AQSIQ
• CNCA manages and organizes the implementation
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Risk Assessment and Conformity
Explosive
Specific areas with high risk potential require specific risk assessment methods
ExplosiveEnvironment
NuclearTechnology
Trans-portation
Machinery Medical
Specific Risk Assessment
Page 16 © 2012 DEKRA
Machinery Devices
…
Essential health and safety requirements are given in harmonized standards
9
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Risk Assessment and Harmonized Standards
Page 17 © 2012 DEKRA
Guide to application of the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC 2nd Edition June 2010: Excerpt from §159
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Risk Assessment According to MD 2006/42/EC 1)
Can a tool help?
• determine the limits of the machinery, which include the intended use and any reasonably foreseeable misuse thereof,
• identify the hazards that can be generated by the machinery and the associated hazardous situations,
• estimate the risks, taking into account the severity of the possible injury or damage to health and the probability of its occurrence,
• evaluate the risks, with a view to determining whether risk reduction is i d i d i h h bj i f hi Di i
Page 18 © 2012 DEKRA
required, in accordance with the objective of this Directive, • eliminate the hazards or reduce the risks associated with these hazards
by application of protective measures.
1) MD = Machinery Directive
10
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Risk Analysis Methodologies
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)■ Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)
■ Others
Page 19 © 2012 DEKRA
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Risk Assessment Calculation (Example)
LO (Likelihood of Occurrence) FE (Frequency of Exposure) HRN Risk0.033 Almost impossible Only in extreme circumstances 0.5 Annually 0-5 Negligible1 Highly unlikely Though conceivable 1 Monthly 5-50 Low, significantg y y g y , g1.5 Unlikely But could occur 1.5 Weekly 50-500 High2 Possible But unusual 2.5 Daily Over 500 Unacceptable5 Even chance Could happen 4 Hourly HRN = LO x FE x DPH x NP8 Probable Not surprising 5 Constantly10 Likely To be expected15 Certain No doubt
DPH (Degree of Possible Harm) NP (Number of Persons at risk)0 1 S t h b i 1 1 2
(Hazard Rating Number)
Page 20 © 2012 DEKRA
0.1 Scratch or bruise 1 1-2 persons0.5 Laceration or mild ill-effect 2 3-7 persons2 Break of minor bone or minor illness (temporary) 4 8-15 persons4 Break of major bone or major illness (temporary) 8 16-50 persons6 Loss of one limb, eye, hearing (permanent) 12 50+ persons10 Loss of two limbs or eyes (permanent)15 Fatality
Source: Pilz Guide to Machinery Safety, 6th Edition
11
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Problems with Numerical Risk Assessments (Risk Matrix)
Poor Resolution
Typical risk matrices can correctly and unambiguously compare only a small fraction (e.g., less than 10%) of randomly selected pairs of hazards. They can assign identical ratings to quantitatively very different risks (“range compression”).
Errors Risk matrices can mistakenly assign higher qualitative ratings to quantitatively smaller risks. For risks with negatively correlated frequencies and severities, they can be “worse than useless,” leading to worse-than-random decisions.
Suboptimal Resource Allocation
Effective allocation of resources to risk-reducing countermeasures cannot be based on the categories provided by risk matrices.
Page 21 © 2012 DEKRA
Ambiguous Inputs and Outputs
Categorizations of severity cannot be made objectively for uncertain consequences. Inputs to risk matrices (e.g., frequency and severity categorizations) and resulting outputs (i.e., risk ratings) require subjective interpretation, and different users may obtain opposite ratings of the same quantitative risks. These limitations suggest that risk matrices should be used with caution, and only with careful explanations of embedded judgments.
Cox, L.A. Jr., 'What's Wrong with Risk Matrices?', Risk Analysis, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2008
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Criticisms of Quantitative Risk Assessment
Risk assessment tends to be overly quantitative and reductive (Barry Commoner Brian Wynne)(Barry Commoner, Brian Wynne).
Risk assessments ignore qualitative differences among risks.
Assessments may drop out important non-quantifiable or inaccessible information, such as variations among the classes of people exposed to hazards.
Quantitative approaches divert attention from precautionary or preventative
Page 22 © 2012 DEKRA
pp p y pmeasures (Barry Commoner, Mary O'Brien).
Risk managers are a little more than "blind users" of statistical tools and methods (Nassim Nicholas Taleb).
12
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Conclusion
Risk assessment and respective tools shall
always be based on relevant (harmonized) standards, reflect specific requirements, be systematic and transparent, easy to apply,
Page 23 © 2012 DEKRA
y pp y, easy to maintain.
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Electrical and Electronic Equipment Mutual Recognition Arrangement (EE MRA)
Part I: Information interchange
Economy EEMRA - Part 1 Date
Australia Yes 2006
Brunei Darussalam Yes 2006
Information about a participating APEC Member Economy's mandatory requirements on regulated electrical and electronic products is provided in a standardized format to assist those in other APEC Member Economies who may wish to export electrical and electronic products to that economy. At present, 17 Member Economies are participants in P t I f th MRA
Canada No Chile Yes June 2007 China Yes 2006
Hong Kong, China Yes May 2007
Indonesia Yes 2006 Japan Yes May 2007Korea Yes 2006 Malaysia Yes 2006 Mexico No New Zealand Yes 2006
Page 24 © 2012 DEKRA
Part I of the MRA.Papua New Guinea Yes
Peru YesPhilippines Yes 2006 Russia YesSingapore Yes May 2007 Chinese Taipei Yes June 2007 Thailand Yes Oct 2008 United States No Viet Nam Yes 2006
13
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Electrical and Electronic Equipment Mutual Recognition Arrangement (EE MRA)
Part II: Acceptance of test reportsPart II of the MRA commits participating
Economy EEMRA - Part 2
Australia Yes Brunei Darussalam Yes C d NPart II of the MRA commits participating
APEC Member Economies to mutually accept test reports produced by testing facilities designated by participating economies in accordance with the designation requirements of the EE MRA. The designation requirements are in accordance with the relevant ISO/IEC Standards and do not require re-testing.
Canada No Chile No China No Hong Kong, China No Indonesia No Japan No Korea No Malaysia Yes Mexico No New Zealand Yes
Page 25 © 2012 DEKRA
Papua New Guinea No Peru No Philippines No Russia No Singapore Yes Chinese Taipei No Thailand No United States No Viet Nam No
APEC Workshop Singapore May 2012
Electrical and Electronic Equipment Mutual Recognition Arrangement (EE MRA)
Part III: Acceptance of certificationPart III commits a participating importing APEC
Economy EEMRA - Part 3
Australia Yes Brunei Darussalam Yes
economy to accept product certification (including batch testing) produced by certification bodies designated by participating exporting economies in accordance with the designation requirements of the EE MRA. The designation requirements are in accordance with the relevant ISO/IEC Guide. Certification bodies may issue product certificates (Certificate of Conformity), which are acceptable in participating importing
Canada No Chile No China No Hong Kong, China No Indonesia No Japan No Korea No Malaysia No Mexico No New Zealand Yes
Page 26 © 2012 DEKRA
acceptable in participating importing economies, thus negating the need to re-certify the product.
Papua New Guinea No Peru No Philippines No Russia No Singapore Yes Chinese Taipei No Thailand No United States No Viet Nam No