| <<< Back to
NRTL Updates - NRTL Update (April 30, 2000) |
Printing Instructions
|
NRTL Update (April 30, 2000)
|
Greetings from the NRTL staff. We have many items to update for the NRTL Contacts, and would appreciate it if you would share this information with others on your staff who deals with the NRTL Program:
- The Directive
As noted in the last update, we issued a comprehensive directive on the policies and procedures for the NRTL Program on December 2, 1999. This document was circulated many times in draft form, but this is the first time we have had a final document in place to inform NRTLs and potential applicants of the expectations and workings of the program.
When applying for expansion or renewal of their recognition, NRTLs must provide all of the information in the application guidelines. One of the things we want to accomplish is to have more thorough and documented files for each laboratory site that reflect all of the actions taken with regard to that site in its history in the NRTL Program. We will eventually be moving towards documenting the files in a database of complete information for each laboratory, and moving away from paper files.
There are other significant parts of the directive that we would like to draw your attention to-particularly the independence policy and the allowance for a variation in the number of follow-up audits you do at manufacturing facilities. These policies were circulated to the NRTLs for comment last year, and have been discussed by our staff with a number of laboratory representatives. As laboratories apply for renewal of recognition, we will be asking for documentation of independence in accordance with the provisions in the directive. With regard to the follow-up audits, the change in our requirements makes the program more consistent with those of other countries.
We are very pleased to have the directive in final form and available to the public. It is important to the credibility of the program that we have written policies and procedures available for anyone who is interested. Along with our increased audit presence, a management tracking system, application guidelines, the web page information, and the training program for our compliance staff, the directive is an important part of our efforts to ensure that the NRTL Program is credible and viable.
- Federal Register Notices
When existing NRTLs apply for expansion of their recognition, they commonly provide a long list of standards for which they would like to be recognized. OSHA reviews this list to ensure that all of the standards are for products that are required to be NRTL tested and certified. If they address testing for types of products that do not have such a requirement, they are considered to be "inappropriate" for NRTL recognition. This does not indicate that there is anything wrong with the standard or with the laboratory requesting recognition-it is simply related to the scope of the program, which is limited to those products for which we require testing.
We have also been including in notices some conditions that have to be followed in order to maintain recognition. This happens frequently when a laboratory applies to be recognized for a standard to which they have not yet tested, and won't until they get a customer that wants testing to that standard. Thus they have not yet developed appropriate test procedures, and OSHA will note in the conditions that such procedures must be developed. These conditions are simply documenting what must be done and are based on the NRTL's demonstrated ability to develop test procedures and historical compliance with OSHA NRTL Program requirements. They are not implying that OSHA has doubts about the laboratory's ability or intent to perform the conditions.
You may be wondering why we are noting these items. A newsletter report on a laboratory's application for expansion was brought to our attention that implied that the laboratory's ability was questionable to OSHA since there were inappropriate test standards as well as conditions on recognition. This is simply untrue, and indicated a lack of knowledge regarding OSHA's procedures and policies for processing applications. If OSHA questioned the laboratory's ability in these areas, recognition would not be recommended by the NRTL staff.
- Mutual Recognition Agreement
There is no new information to report with regard to the implementation of the MRA. We have not yet received and processed any complete applications, and discussions continue regarding differing interpretations of the negotiated provisions.
- Audit Issues
During the last 3 years, we have come very close to meeting our goal of auditing every site every year. Prior to that time, we audited facilities as we were able to, but many times we did not re-visit a site for several years. When we did get back to them, we found that the lack of OSHA oversight contributed to a slippage in laboratories' own quality control programs and self-audit processes. The regular presence of OSHA oversight contributes to the maintenance of laboratories' quality control programs, and quality control managers often appreciate the OSHA visits since it gives them the impetus and authority to maintain a creditable program.
Similarly, OSHA believes the onsite visits are important to us as well. We like having our staff be familiar with the various sites we cover, and having personal contact with the lab staff. This is important to the management and credibility of our program.
ACIL recently suggested to OSHA that audits be done less frequently, such as every 3 years. We indicated to them that we consider that to be too long a time period to go without an audit. Furthermore, we don't think that a variation in audit frequency is appropriate for all lab sites. While some may be able to go longer periods of time without a site visit than others may, regular oversight is still required.
We have considered a sliding scale for audit frequency. Those laboratories that we find in good compliance year after year may be audited less frequently than those that are problematic. We would anticipate that audits every two years would be the minimum frequency, and that we may have to go to some facilities more than once a year. We are inviting you to provide input on this subject. Please feel free to e-mail me your views and substantiating information by April 30, 2000.
A related issue for ACIL was OSHA's use of contract auditors or non-OSHA staff for audits or assessments. While this is possible under the NRTL Program, we do not find it necessary at this time. OSHA has sufficient staff available to conduct the audits and assessments required. We have had some preliminary discussions with ANSI about the possibility of scheduling joint visits, but are not at the point to act on these discussions as yet.
- Fees Notice
We are working on the final fees notice, and expect to have it published by the end of June after it is reviewed within OSHA and the Department of Labor. The four comments that were received on the notice were from The Commission of the European Communities, Underwriters' Laboratories, ACIL, and National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Anyone can obtain copies of these comments from the OSHA Docket Office.
- View of the NRTL Program
As noted above, OSHA has undertaken a number of activities we believe are critical to the proper management and implementation of our program. These activities are related to ensuring that OSHA's standards requiring testing and certification of products meet their safety and health goals by maintaining recognition only for those laboratories that are qualified and following accepted quality control programs.
Enforcement in the field of OSHA's standards for testing and certification is handled by OSHA's enforcement staff and is one of many responsibilities they have for enforcement of standards. Fortunately, the US requirements overall for electrical safety are quite good, and electrical product related incidents are relatively infrequent compared to the number of products in use. Since OSHA's has limited resources, enforcement priority is targeted to those areas where the problems are most severe, and hazards most evident. The citation of equipment that has not been properly tested and certified is most likely to occur when an accident happens related to its use. Given the Agency's approach to safety and health, competing interests and resources, this is likely to remain our policy in this area.
We know there are some among you who consider OSHA enforcement of such requirements to be a high priority and a "service" we provide to the NRTLs. This is not consistent with the Agency's views. OSHA's standards, and enforcement of them, are related solely to occupational safety and health.
We are also concerned that people recognize the limited scope of the NRTL Program. As noted in previous updates, we have no problem with state and local authorities or international organizations using the NRTL Program as part of their efforts to regulate electrical safety. However, this is not part of the scope of the NRTL Program, and OSHA will not be involved in these activities.
- ACES
Another subject we discussed with ACIL is the group they have formed to address electrical safety issues, dubbed ACES (American Council on Electrical Safety). OSHA attended the first meeting of this group. We think it is commendable for ACIL to consider establishing a forum to exchange information on electrical safety issues such as adequacy of existing test standards, and OSHA wholeheartedly supports such efforts. However, the purpose of the group, its goals, and its functioning are still in the formative stages, and we have expressed some concerns about how it is being presented and its direction. For example, there seemed to be at least some concept that this group would function as an advisory committee to OSHA. Advisory committees to government agencies must be formed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Agencies have been in the process of reducing such committees rather than increasing the number and OSHA has no plans to establish such a committee in this area. As long as the group remains a forum for an informal exchange of information on electrical safety, OSHA will look forward to taking part as an observer. If it becomes a group with other purposes, we may have to abstain from further participation.
- IECEx Scheme
One of the NRTLs requested information on OSHA's position on participation in the IECEx for explosive atmospheres. The intent of this scheme is to provide an internationally accepted means of providing product compliance with an IEC standard. I think that our response would be of interest to all the NRTLs and is included below:
Any of the NRTLs can participate in the IECEx Scheme for those certification programs that recognize the testing performed to those requirements, and for products destined for markets in other countries. However, products to be used in US workplaces must meet the requirements in the standards recognized by OSHA under the NRTL Program. Correspondingly, if the products were to be used in underground mining, they must meet the requirements in the standards recognized by MSHA. At the present time, neither program recognizes any IECEx standards. In fact, our experts believe some of the IECEx standards do not provide the same level of safety as the United States Equivalent standard, or recognize safety methods that are not presently acceptable. Thus to certify a product under NRTL requirements, the testing would have to be to US-based standards for which you are recognized under the NRTL Program.
Many NRTLs have applied for recognition of ANSI/UL Standard 2279, which is based upon the international standard IEC 60079. Both of these standards utilize a zone-based classification system, which is presently not recognized by OSHA regulations. Therefore, the OSHA NRTL Program has not recognized ANSI/UL 2279, and laboratories cannot certify products for the US workplace based upon ANSI/UL 2279.
- Labeling Products
During a recent audit of an NRTL, it was noticed that the NRTL took measures to ensure that their mark was only used by a manufacturer on products that the NRTL had tested and listed. The manufacturer had been using the NRTL mark on other products not covered under the testing and certification. When the NRTL stopped the manufacturer from labeling the non-certified products, the manufacturer dropped their listing and had its product listed by another NRTL. This gives the appearance that the manufacturer is shopping for an NRTL that does not enforce the inspection of the product at the manufacturing site as stringently as did the first NRTL. NRTLs should carefully review those manufacturers that change their listings from one NRTL to another without a reasonable explanation. The NRTL may be inheriting serious problems and increased liability along with a new listing. These may be manufacturers that have demonstrated an inability to manufacture and label a product in conformance with the product safety requirements, or in maintaining controls over the production process. These manufacturers should be considered as operating a manufacturing facility where greater safety concerns exist as defined in Appendix C of the NRTL Program Policies, OSHA Directive Number CPL 1-0.3.
- UL1950
As some of you know, Underwriters Laboratory is in the process of issuing a new standard UL 60950, which will replace the existing UL 1950 test standard. We have not completed our inquiry into this matter, but our information to date shows that the two standards are substantially the same, although it appears the scope of the new standard may be somewhat different. If we determine that the standards are substantially equivalent, we plan to add UL 60950 to the scope of recognition of any NRTL that is recognized for UL 1950 on the date that we update our records. In this case, you would not need to submit an expansion request. Our action would be consistent with our policy on withdrawn test standards, which I mentioned in an earlier update. If we determine they are not substantially equivalent, we will so inform you, and any NRTL wishing recognition for the new standard must apply for an expansion of recognition.
It has been brought to our attention that some types of telecommunications equipment which fall under the scope of the UL 1950 standard, but do not meet certain requirements in the standard, may be evaluated and certified by some NRTLs utilizing a supplemental test or requirements document. This supplemental test or requirements document is not a test standard for which they are recognized under the NRTL Program. As a general matter, this means that such equipment would not meet relevant OSHA product approval, i.e., NRTL approval requirements in OSHA standards, and could not be used in US workplaces. Therefore, OSHA could not accept an employer's use of this equipment. We understand that this particular type of equipment is mostly used by "communications utilities," and as such is generally excluded from the NRTL approval requirement by provisions in subpart S of OSHA standards. However, the exclusion does not apply to this equipment when it is owned or used by an employer that is not a "utility." OSHA will be evaluating this situation further.
- Staff News
We are pleased to announce that Ken Klouse, who had been on loan to OSHA from MSHA for many years, is now a permanent OSHA staff member. Ken has a long history with the NRTL Program, and we are happy to have him with us full-time.
Bernard Pasquet has been out with a serious back injury for several weeks. For the immediate future, please be sure to copy any e-mail you send to him to me so I can make sure your inquiry is addressed by someone else. Others on the staff are helping to cover Bernard's work, but we would appreciate your patience as we determine what needs to be done and what the status of everything is at this point.
Jennifer Silk
Director
Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
|
| |
|
