rus
Issue #1/2020
O. A. Kryuchina, I. E. Sadovnikov
Harmonization with European Union Standards: Issues, Problems, Solutions
Harmonization with European Union Standards: Issues, Problems, Solutions
DOI: 10.22184/1993-7296.FRos.2020.14.1.56.65
Harmonization of Russian regulatory documents with European Union (EU) standards is necessary to increase the effectiveness of mechanisms for the mutual recognition of certification results by national laboratories, certification centers and qualification communities. This article identifies significant differences between Russian and foreign documents, creating obstacles to simplify harmonization, and suggests possible solutions to the problems that have arisen.
Harmonization of Russian regulatory documents with European Union (EU) standards is necessary to increase the effectiveness of mechanisms for the mutual recognition of certification results by national laboratories, certification centers and qualification communities. This article identifies significant differences between Russian and foreign documents, creating obstacles to simplify harmonization, and suggests possible solutions to the problems that have arisen.
Теги: harmonization with eu standards hazard classification of laser products iec60825-1 maximum permissible exposure (mpe) maximum permissible level (mpl) regulatory documents on laser safety гармонизация со стандартами ес классификация лазерных изделий по степени опасности максимально допустимая экспозиция (мдэ) нормативные документы по лазерной безопасности предельно допустимый уровень (пду)
Harmonization with European Union Standards: Issues, Problems, Solutions
O. A. Kryuchina, I. E. Sadovnikov
NTO IRE-Polus LLC, Fryazino, Moscow Region, Russia
Harmonization of Russian regulatory documents with European Union (EU) standards is necessary to increase the effectiveness of mechanisms for the mutual recognition of certification results by national laboratories, certification centers and qualification communities. This article identifies significant differences between Russian and foreign documents, creating obstacles to simplify harmonization, and suggests possible solutions to the problems that have arisen.
Key words: regulatory documents on laser safety, harmonization with EU standards, IEC60825-1, hazard classification of laser products, maximum permissible level (MPL), maximum permissible exposure (MPE)
Received on:06.09.2019
Accepted for publication on: 24.11.2019
Introduction
Order of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1305r dated July 24, 2013 on the development of optoelectronic technologies (photonics) provides for Task No. 18 related to the issue of laser safety (LS): “development of technical regulations of the Customs Union for the safety of laser products (hereinafter referred to as LS CU TR), harmonized with European Union (EU) standards, with the introduction of mechanisms for the mutual recognition of certification results by national laboratories and certification centers” [1].
To carry out work on the customs regulations of the LS CU TR, it is necessary to develop standards that provide a regulatory basis for assessing the conformity of products with the TR requirements during its certification. The authors analyzed the provisions of the Russian and foreign regulatory documentation (RD) on laser safety [2–9]. The most significant aspects for harmonization are given in this article.
About IEC60825-1 Standards
Harmonization with the EU standards, first of all, implies harmonization with IEC laser safety standards.
In the past five years, when discussing translation inaccuracies and shortcomings of the IEC60825-1-2007 standard (IEC2007), on the basis of which GOST IEC60825-1-2013 (GOST IEC) was developed [2], the specialists did not pay attention to the fact that in 2014, the International Electrotechnical Commission issued the standard IEC60825-1-2014 (IEC2014), which cancels IEC2007. Fig. 1 shows a comparative table of standards of the IEC series. The new IEC2014 standard has two fundamental differences from IEC2007:
A new hazard class 1C has been introduced:
The values of the standardized parameters for determining the 1 and 1M, 2 and 2M, 3R classes of pulse sources have been updated (with reference to ICNIRP – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) [3].
Terminology. Regulations
Harmonization of Russian regulatory documents with EU standards implies not only the absence of contradictions between GOSTs on laser topics, including the IEC series, but also the compliance of GOSTs with sanitary norms and rules (SR). The authors of [1, 10–13] specify fundamental differences of regulatory documents that do not allow for a correct and complete regulatory framework.
In connection with the Regulation on the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Regulation approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 554 dated July 24, 2000, clause 11, “regulatory legal acts related to ensuring the sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population adopted by federal executive bodies, state standards, construction standards and rules, labor protection rules, veterinary and phytosanitary rules must not contradict the sanitary rules”. Thus, there is a need to eliminate the contradictions between standards and sanitary norms [10].
The most obvious discrepancies in the RD are differences in terminology and in the values of the standards (energy exposure and laser radiation exposure). The standards related to the degree of human exposure to laser radiation:
The term MPE by implication means the same as the MPL [11]. In the Belarusian version of IEC2014: STB IEC [4], harmonization with the SR was made, and the term is translated as MPL.
Recalculation of the values of the standards showed differences in the approaches of IEC and SR. The parameters set by the SR‑91 are energy (W, J), energy exposure (N, J / m2) (for pulsed radiation) and power (P, W), irradiation (E, W / m2) (for continuous radiation). In the IEC series of standards, the values W, P, H, E are given, without any dependence on the operating mode.
The principles of IEC standards laid down for calculations differ from Russian ones in the presence of a large number of coefficients, and for the determination of some of them additional calculations are necessary.
Documents SR‑91 and SanPin‑16 are aimed at ensuring the safety of people, they have a high regulatory status and their requirements are binding. The IEC GOST document sets out the equipment requirements, and the MPE values are the reference information. In the STB IEC document, the definition of the term MPE in Note 2 states: “The MPL values given in Appendix A are for reference only, so that the manufacturer can calculate the nominal safe eye distance, perform a risk analysis and inform the user about the safe use of the product” (absent in GOST IEC) [2, 4].
In this regard, it is not advisable to take into account the IEC values when harmonizing the MPL of human exposure to laser radiation. The standards by which hazard classes of laser products are determined:
For the 1st hazard class in the Russian SR document, 10 spectral intervals for a pulsed mode of operation and 12 spectral intervals for a continuous mode of operation can be distinguished with 13 and 12 in the IEC series standards, respectively. The boundaries of two of them (180 < λ ≤ 302.5 nm; 302.5 < λ ≤ 315 nm) coincide (for both operating modes). A similar situation was revealed for time intervals.
It is not possible to completely compare the standards for the 2nd and 3rd classes (3R, 3B) because of the different approaches laid down in the definitions of the classes themselves (see “Classification” section below).
An analysis of the comparison of the AEL SN‑91 and IEC2014 standards is summarized in diagrams (Fig. 2a-c):
It is incorrect to unconditionally accept the variant of European norms as the basis for harmonization, since in the total (Fig. 2c) of 98.15% of the values have contradictions. 1.85% matches are the values for class 1 in some time intervals of the UV range (180 < λ ≤ 380 nm).
The largest difference in values varies from 1 000 to 4 500 times for the pulsed mode of operation in the controversial interval of 380 < λ ≤ 400 nm: in the IEC series standards, it falls into the UV range, and into the visible range in the SR (Fig. 3).
G. I. Zheltov [11, 12] argues that the Russian standards are the most reliable (possibly, with the exception of standards updated in IEC2014 [3]).
To harmonize AEL standards, it is required to:
The serious contradictions in this direction require coverage and discussion of this issue in the expert community.
Classification
Another fundamental point in the harmonization process is the classification of laser products by hazard level. The distinction between product classifications in the documents SR‑91, SanPiN‑16 and GOST IEC has long been a subject of discussion in the field of medicine. An attempt to harmonize the classification was made in SanPiN‑16, and 7 classes were introduced, but the class definitions are given in an abbreviated form or changed, as a result of which the essence of the definition of the 1st hazard class has changed in comparison with the standards of the IEC series.
One of the most significant terms in the definition of 1st class is Embedded laser equipment (Embedded laser product, which is given in the standards of the IEC and ANSI series and dramatically changes the meaning of the definition of class 1 in SanPiN‑16 [2–5, 8].
An embedded laser product is a laser product which, due to design features that limit the intensity of available radiation, has a lower class than the class of the laser included in it (STB IEC (Clause 3.30) [4].
Devices to which class 1C is assigned is a vivid example of an embedded laser product: “levels of exposure or energy exposure may exceed the MPE for the skin”, “eye hazard is prevented by engineering means, i. e., radiation ceases or the intensity of accessible radiation decreases to a level below ARIL (AEL) class 1” [4].
One needs to pay attention to the provisions of the IEC series standards: “the requirements of this standard do not apply to any laser product if the classification made by the manufacturer of this product shows that the radiation level does not exceed the accessible radiation intensity limit (ARIL) (AEL) for class 1 for all operating conditions, technical and service maintenance and in the event of a malfunction. Such a laser product can be considered as a safe laser product” [4], i. e. laser products defined as class 1 in SR‑91, SanPiN‑16, GOST 2012 are not considered in the IEC series standards.
Table 1 defines the hazard class 1 of the aforementioned regulatory documents. To harmonize the definition of the 1st hazard class, the following is proposed.
Class 1 Laser products that are safe to use, including long-term direct beam observation, even when radiation occurs through optical observation devices (e. g. binoculars). Class 1 also includes high radiation power lasers that are completely enclosed, so that potentially hazardous radiation is not available when used (embedded laser product). Observing a Class 1 laser product beam that emits visible radiation can create a dazzling effect, especially in low ambient light. (Note: A common example of a Class 1 laser product is a product that includes a higher-class embedded laser, but there is no danger of laser damage to the user under normal operation conditions.)
The main and fundamental differences of the 2nd and 3rd (3R, 3B) classes between the SR‑91 and the standards of the IEC series are the mismatch of the spectral intervals for which the requirements of each class are established (see table 2) [4, 7]. One of the options for solving this issue may be the adoption of the classification of standards of the IEC series, since it is more detailed and allows for covering a large number of varieties of laser products, including medical equipment (class 1C).
The provisions regarding the requirements for the manufacture, operation, placement of laser products, personnel requirements and others can be harmonized without hindrance.
Conclusion
The harmonization process is necessary not only to increase the effectiveness of mechanisms for the mutual recognition of certification results, but also to update RD on laser safety, and create a solid base that will serve as the basis for the development of standards on the topics of laser technology, research, etc. Furthermore, the gaps that may arise in the event of the entry into force of the resolution “On the recognition of normative legal acts and certain provisions of the normative legal acts of the Russian Federation and the RSFSR” will be filled, i. e., after the cancellation of a number of RDs.
To facilitate the harmonization process, it is necessary to create a basic document with terms and definitions that can be obtained with the joint coordinated work of TC296 “Optics and Photonics”, TC452 “Safety of audio, video, electronic equipment, information technology equipment and telecommunication equipment”, Rospotrebnadzor, Academician N. F. Izmerov Research Institute of Occupational Medicine, B. I. Stepanov Institute of Physics of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus and all interested enterprises working in the field of photonics and laser technology. Accepted terms and definitions should form the basis of both SR and updated standards.
Undoubtedly, the additional studies are necessary, taking into account the fact that over the 28 years since the release of the CH‑91, there has been a jump to a fundamentally new level of laser equipment and technologies. Furthermore, in the articles [11, 13], sponsored by the developers of CH‑91, it is said that there is no information about the studies in some spectral and time intervals. Only a few provisions were updated in IEC, and the rest of the information remained at the level of the 80s of the last century. This indicates the relevance of work in this direction.
Conclusions and proposals
Align the terminology of the SR and standards.
Update the terms, taking into account the latest developments in the field of laser equipment and technologies.
Harmonize the developed regulatory documents with the new version of the standards of the IEC series: IEC60825-1-2014.
Supplement the hazard classification and introduce Class 1C.
To prepare for harmonization, harmonize the spectral and time intervals, align the regulatory parameters.
Involve all interested specialists in the field of photonics and laser technology in the harmonization process.
REFERENCEs
Rahmanov B. N., Devisilov V. A., Mitrofanov A. V., Kibovskij V. T. Voprosy tekhnicheskogo regulirovaniya bezopasnogo primeneniya lazernoj apparatury. CHast’ I. Tekh-nicheskie reglamenty Tamozhennogo soyuza. - Fotonika. 2013; 6 (42): 46–60.
GOST IEC60825-1-2013.Bezopasnost’ lazernoj apparatury. CHast’ 1. Klassi-fikaciya oborudovaniya, trebovaniya i rukovodstvo dlya pol’zovatelej.
IEC60825-1-2014. URL: https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/3587 svobodnyj.
STB IEC60825-1-2017. Bezopasnost’ lazernyh izdelij. CHast’ 1. Klassifika-ciya oborudovaniya i trebovaniya.
ANSI Z136.1-2014. American National Standard for Safe Use of Lasers. (Neofi-cial’nyj perevod).
BS EN60825-1: 2014. Safety of laser products. Part 1: Equipment classification and requirements (Neoficial’nyj perevod).
Sanitarnye normy i pravila ustrojstva i ekspluatacii lazerov № 5804-91.
Sanitarno-epidemiologicheskih trebovaniya k fizicheskim faktoram na rabochih mestah № 2.2.4.2259-2016 (Razdel VIII. “Lazernoe izluchenie na rabochih mestah”).
GOST 31581-2012. Lazernaya bezopasnost’. Obshchie trebovaniya bezopasnosti pri razrabotke i ekspluatacii lazernyh izdelij.
Rahmanov B. N., Kibovskij V. T. Lazer. Vse zhe kakogo on klassa opasnosti. CHast’ I. – Photonics Russia. 2015; № 5 (53).
ZHeltov G. I. Normativy po lazernoj bezopasnosti: istoki, uroven’, perspek-tivy. – Photonics Russia. 2017. 61 (1): 10–35.
ZHeltov G.I. O normativah po lazernoj bezopasnosti. – Lazer-Inform, 2018; 15–16: 630–631.
Mal’kova N. YU., Luginya S. V. Problemy tekhnicheskogo regulirovaniya v oblasti fotoniki. – Photonics Russia. 2019; 13(2): 208–213.
About authors
Kryuchina Ol’ga Alekseevna,
oKryuchina@ntoire-polus.ru, NTO IRE-Polus LLC, Fryazino, Moscow Region, Russia.
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7592-0790
Sadovnikov Igor’ Ernestovich,
iSadovnikov@ntoire-polus.ru, NTO IRE-Polus LLC, Fryazino, Moscow Region, Russia.
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-7576-6591
O. A. Kryuchina, I. E. Sadovnikov
NTO IRE-Polus LLC, Fryazino, Moscow Region, Russia
Harmonization of Russian regulatory documents with European Union (EU) standards is necessary to increase the effectiveness of mechanisms for the mutual recognition of certification results by national laboratories, certification centers and qualification communities. This article identifies significant differences between Russian and foreign documents, creating obstacles to simplify harmonization, and suggests possible solutions to the problems that have arisen.
Key words: regulatory documents on laser safety, harmonization with EU standards, IEC60825-1, hazard classification of laser products, maximum permissible level (MPL), maximum permissible exposure (MPE)
Received on:06.09.2019
Accepted for publication on: 24.11.2019
Introduction
Order of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1305r dated July 24, 2013 on the development of optoelectronic technologies (photonics) provides for Task No. 18 related to the issue of laser safety (LS): “development of technical regulations of the Customs Union for the safety of laser products (hereinafter referred to as LS CU TR), harmonized with European Union (EU) standards, with the introduction of mechanisms for the mutual recognition of certification results by national laboratories and certification centers” [1].
To carry out work on the customs regulations of the LS CU TR, it is necessary to develop standards that provide a regulatory basis for assessing the conformity of products with the TR requirements during its certification. The authors analyzed the provisions of the Russian and foreign regulatory documentation (RD) on laser safety [2–9]. The most significant aspects for harmonization are given in this article.
About IEC60825-1 Standards
Harmonization with the EU standards, first of all, implies harmonization with IEC laser safety standards.
In the past five years, when discussing translation inaccuracies and shortcomings of the IEC60825-1-2007 standard (IEC2007), on the basis of which GOST IEC60825-1-2013 (GOST IEC) was developed [2], the specialists did not pay attention to the fact that in 2014, the International Electrotechnical Commission issued the standard IEC60825-1-2014 (IEC2014), which cancels IEC2007. Fig. 1 shows a comparative table of standards of the IEC series. The new IEC2014 standard has two fundamental differences from IEC2007:
A new hazard class 1C has been introduced:
The values of the standardized parameters for determining the 1 and 1M, 2 and 2M, 3R classes of pulse sources have been updated (with reference to ICNIRP – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) [3].
Terminology. Regulations
Harmonization of Russian regulatory documents with EU standards implies not only the absence of contradictions between GOSTs on laser topics, including the IEC series, but also the compliance of GOSTs with sanitary norms and rules (SR). The authors of [1, 10–13] specify fundamental differences of regulatory documents that do not allow for a correct and complete regulatory framework.
In connection with the Regulation on the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Regulation approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 554 dated July 24, 2000, clause 11, “regulatory legal acts related to ensuring the sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population adopted by federal executive bodies, state standards, construction standards and rules, labor protection rules, veterinary and phytosanitary rules must not contradict the sanitary rules”. Thus, there is a need to eliminate the contradictions between standards and sanitary norms [10].
The most obvious discrepancies in the RD are differences in terminology and in the values of the standards (energy exposure and laser radiation exposure). The standards related to the degree of human exposure to laser radiation:
- IEC60825-1-2007 [3] – Maximum permissible exposure (MPE);
- GOST IEC60825-1-2013 [2] – Maximum permissible exposure (MPE);
- STB IEC60825-1-2017 (STB IEC) [4] – Maximum permissible level (MPL);
- Sanitary standards and rules for the design and operation of lasers No. 5804-91 (СН‑91) [7] – Maximum permissible level (MPL);
- Sanitary and epidemiological requirements for physical factors at workplaces No. 2.2.4.2259-2016 (Section VIII “Laser radiation at workplaces”) (SanPiN‑16) [8] – Maximum permissible level (MPL);
- GOST 31581-2012 (GOST 2012) – Maximum permissible level (MPL).
The term MPE by implication means the same as the MPL [11]. In the Belarusian version of IEC2014: STB IEC [4], harmonization with the SR was made, and the term is translated as MPL.
Recalculation of the values of the standards showed differences in the approaches of IEC and SR. The parameters set by the SR‑91 are energy (W, J), energy exposure (N, J / m2) (for pulsed radiation) and power (P, W), irradiation (E, W / m2) (for continuous radiation). In the IEC series of standards, the values W, P, H, E are given, without any dependence on the operating mode.
The principles of IEC standards laid down for calculations differ from Russian ones in the presence of a large number of coefficients, and for the determination of some of them additional calculations are necessary.
Documents SR‑91 and SanPin‑16 are aimed at ensuring the safety of people, they have a high regulatory status and their requirements are binding. The IEC GOST document sets out the equipment requirements, and the MPE values are the reference information. In the STB IEC document, the definition of the term MPE in Note 2 states: “The MPL values given in Appendix A are for reference only, so that the manufacturer can calculate the nominal safe eye distance, perform a risk analysis and inform the user about the safe use of the product” (absent in GOST IEC) [2, 4].
In this regard, it is not advisable to take into account the IEC values when harmonizing the MPL of human exposure to laser radiation. The standards by which hazard classes of laser products are determined:
- IEC60825-1-2007 [3] – Accessible emission limit (AEL);
- GOST IEC60825-1-2013 [2] – Accessible emission limit (AEL);
- STB IEC60825-1-2017 [4] – Accessible radiation intensity limit (ARIL);
- CH‑91 – the term is missing;
- SanPiN‑16 – the term is missing;
- GOST 31581-2012 – Permissible radiation limit (PRL).
For the 1st hazard class in the Russian SR document, 10 spectral intervals for a pulsed mode of operation and 12 spectral intervals for a continuous mode of operation can be distinguished with 13 and 12 in the IEC series standards, respectively. The boundaries of two of them (180 < λ ≤ 302.5 nm; 302.5 < λ ≤ 315 nm) coincide (for both operating modes). A similar situation was revealed for time intervals.
It is not possible to completely compare the standards for the 2nd and 3rd classes (3R, 3B) because of the different approaches laid down in the definitions of the classes themselves (see “Classification” section below).
An analysis of the comparison of the AEL SN‑91 and IEC2014 standards is summarized in diagrams (Fig. 2a-c):
- Fig. 2a – for each spectral (from 180 to 106 nm) and time (from 10–13 to 3 ∙ 103 s) intervals for 1 / (1 and 1M) hazard class;
- Fig. 2b – for possible spectral and time intervals of 2 / (2 and 2M), 3 / (3R), 3 / (3B) hazard classes;
- Fig. 2c – total for 1 / (1 and 1M), 2 / (2 and 2M), 3 / (3R), 3 / (3B) hazard classes.
It is incorrect to unconditionally accept the variant of European norms as the basis for harmonization, since in the total (Fig. 2c) of 98.15% of the values have contradictions. 1.85% matches are the values for class 1 in some time intervals of the UV range (180 < λ ≤ 380 nm).
The largest difference in values varies from 1 000 to 4 500 times for the pulsed mode of operation in the controversial interval of 380 < λ ≤ 400 nm: in the IEC series standards, it falls into the UV range, and into the visible range in the SR (Fig. 3).
G. I. Zheltov [11, 12] argues that the Russian standards are the most reliable (possibly, with the exception of standards updated in IEC2014 [3]).
To harmonize AEL standards, it is required to:
- align the spectral and time intervals;
- bring standards to the same parameters, for example, to energy (W) and power (P);
- bring standards to the same dimensions and values.
The serious contradictions in this direction require coverage and discussion of this issue in the expert community.
Classification
Another fundamental point in the harmonization process is the classification of laser products by hazard level. The distinction between product classifications in the documents SR‑91, SanPiN‑16 and GOST IEC has long been a subject of discussion in the field of medicine. An attempt to harmonize the classification was made in SanPiN‑16, and 7 classes were introduced, but the class definitions are given in an abbreviated form or changed, as a result of which the essence of the definition of the 1st hazard class has changed in comparison with the standards of the IEC series.
One of the most significant terms in the definition of 1st class is Embedded laser equipment (Embedded laser product, which is given in the standards of the IEC and ANSI series and dramatically changes the meaning of the definition of class 1 in SanPiN‑16 [2–5, 8].
An embedded laser product is a laser product which, due to design features that limit the intensity of available radiation, has a lower class than the class of the laser included in it (STB IEC (Clause 3.30) [4].
Devices to which class 1C is assigned is a vivid example of an embedded laser product: “levels of exposure or energy exposure may exceed the MPE for the skin”, “eye hazard is prevented by engineering means, i. e., radiation ceases or the intensity of accessible radiation decreases to a level below ARIL (AEL) class 1” [4].
One needs to pay attention to the provisions of the IEC series standards: “the requirements of this standard do not apply to any laser product if the classification made by the manufacturer of this product shows that the radiation level does not exceed the accessible radiation intensity limit (ARIL) (AEL) for class 1 for all operating conditions, technical and service maintenance and in the event of a malfunction. Such a laser product can be considered as a safe laser product” [4], i. e. laser products defined as class 1 in SR‑91, SanPiN‑16, GOST 2012 are not considered in the IEC series standards.
Table 1 defines the hazard class 1 of the aforementioned regulatory documents. To harmonize the definition of the 1st hazard class, the following is proposed.
Class 1 Laser products that are safe to use, including long-term direct beam observation, even when radiation occurs through optical observation devices (e. g. binoculars). Class 1 also includes high radiation power lasers that are completely enclosed, so that potentially hazardous radiation is not available when used (embedded laser product). Observing a Class 1 laser product beam that emits visible radiation can create a dazzling effect, especially in low ambient light. (Note: A common example of a Class 1 laser product is a product that includes a higher-class embedded laser, but there is no danger of laser damage to the user under normal operation conditions.)
The main and fundamental differences of the 2nd and 3rd (3R, 3B) classes between the SR‑91 and the standards of the IEC series are the mismatch of the spectral intervals for which the requirements of each class are established (see table 2) [4, 7]. One of the options for solving this issue may be the adoption of the classification of standards of the IEC series, since it is more detailed and allows for covering a large number of varieties of laser products, including medical equipment (class 1C).
The provisions regarding the requirements for the manufacture, operation, placement of laser products, personnel requirements and others can be harmonized without hindrance.
Conclusion
The harmonization process is necessary not only to increase the effectiveness of mechanisms for the mutual recognition of certification results, but also to update RD on laser safety, and create a solid base that will serve as the basis for the development of standards on the topics of laser technology, research, etc. Furthermore, the gaps that may arise in the event of the entry into force of the resolution “On the recognition of normative legal acts and certain provisions of the normative legal acts of the Russian Federation and the RSFSR” will be filled, i. e., after the cancellation of a number of RDs.
To facilitate the harmonization process, it is necessary to create a basic document with terms and definitions that can be obtained with the joint coordinated work of TC296 “Optics and Photonics”, TC452 “Safety of audio, video, electronic equipment, information technology equipment and telecommunication equipment”, Rospotrebnadzor, Academician N. F. Izmerov Research Institute of Occupational Medicine, B. I. Stepanov Institute of Physics of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus and all interested enterprises working in the field of photonics and laser technology. Accepted terms and definitions should form the basis of both SR and updated standards.
Undoubtedly, the additional studies are necessary, taking into account the fact that over the 28 years since the release of the CH‑91, there has been a jump to a fundamentally new level of laser equipment and technologies. Furthermore, in the articles [11, 13], sponsored by the developers of CH‑91, it is said that there is no information about the studies in some spectral and time intervals. Only a few provisions were updated in IEC, and the rest of the information remained at the level of the 80s of the last century. This indicates the relevance of work in this direction.
Conclusions and proposals
Align the terminology of the SR and standards.
Update the terms, taking into account the latest developments in the field of laser equipment and technologies.
Harmonize the developed regulatory documents with the new version of the standards of the IEC series: IEC60825-1-2014.
Supplement the hazard classification and introduce Class 1C.
To prepare for harmonization, harmonize the spectral and time intervals, align the regulatory parameters.
Involve all interested specialists in the field of photonics and laser technology in the harmonization process.
REFERENCEs
Rahmanov B. N., Devisilov V. A., Mitrofanov A. V., Kibovskij V. T. Voprosy tekhnicheskogo regulirovaniya bezopasnogo primeneniya lazernoj apparatury. CHast’ I. Tekh-nicheskie reglamenty Tamozhennogo soyuza. - Fotonika. 2013; 6 (42): 46–60.
GOST IEC60825-1-2013.Bezopasnost’ lazernoj apparatury. CHast’ 1. Klassi-fikaciya oborudovaniya, trebovaniya i rukovodstvo dlya pol’zovatelej.
IEC60825-1-2014. URL: https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/3587 svobodnyj.
STB IEC60825-1-2017. Bezopasnost’ lazernyh izdelij. CHast’ 1. Klassifika-ciya oborudovaniya i trebovaniya.
ANSI Z136.1-2014. American National Standard for Safe Use of Lasers. (Neofi-cial’nyj perevod).
BS EN60825-1: 2014. Safety of laser products. Part 1: Equipment classification and requirements (Neoficial’nyj perevod).
Sanitarnye normy i pravila ustrojstva i ekspluatacii lazerov № 5804-91.
Sanitarno-epidemiologicheskih trebovaniya k fizicheskim faktoram na rabochih mestah № 2.2.4.2259-2016 (Razdel VIII. “Lazernoe izluchenie na rabochih mestah”).
GOST 31581-2012. Lazernaya bezopasnost’. Obshchie trebovaniya bezopasnosti pri razrabotke i ekspluatacii lazernyh izdelij.
Rahmanov B. N., Kibovskij V. T. Lazer. Vse zhe kakogo on klassa opasnosti. CHast’ I. – Photonics Russia. 2015; № 5 (53).
ZHeltov G. I. Normativy po lazernoj bezopasnosti: istoki, uroven’, perspek-tivy. – Photonics Russia. 2017. 61 (1): 10–35.
ZHeltov G.I. O normativah po lazernoj bezopasnosti. – Lazer-Inform, 2018; 15–16: 630–631.
Mal’kova N. YU., Luginya S. V. Problemy tekhnicheskogo regulirovaniya v oblasti fotoniki. – Photonics Russia. 2019; 13(2): 208–213.
About authors
Kryuchina Ol’ga Alekseevna,
oKryuchina@ntoire-polus.ru, NTO IRE-Polus LLC, Fryazino, Moscow Region, Russia.
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7592-0790
Sadovnikov Igor’ Ernestovich,
iSadovnikov@ntoire-polus.ru, NTO IRE-Polus LLC, Fryazino, Moscow Region, Russia.
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-7576-6591
Readers feedback
