The Code Reporter

The latest information on the California elevator safety code.





Friday, December 10, 2010

The Code Reporter – Elevator Pit Ladder Craziness

A number of people have asked me whether a pit ladder is required to be installed in an existing elevator pit on an old elevator where no ladder had ever been installed (California).  I had said that unless an alteration was performed where the pit itself was altered, e.g. deepened, reconstructed, etc., that there was no code requirement to add a ladder.  This is apparently wrong as I just found out during an inspection of a winding drum conversation alteration.  The old winding drum elevator had a 38 inch pit depth and never had a pit ladder.  The alteration did not involve deepening or reconstructing the pit per se, but did include new buffer springs, pit lighting & outlet – the typical work of a major alteration.

The inspector indicated that a ladder must be installed based on California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 8, Section 3016(d)(4) which reads:
(4) Access to pits over 3 ft (914mm) in depth below the sill of the pit access door shall be by means of a permanent ladder or stairway into the pit.  The ladder or stairway shall be adequately guarded to prevent contact between a person on the ladder or stairway and any moving part of adjacent elevators or machinery.  The ladder shall be located adjacent to the strike jamb of and accessible from the access door to the pit.
EXCEPTIONS to subsection 3016(d)(4);
1.       Ladders or stairways are not required to be provided in pits of elevators installed before June 5, 1947 unless they have undergone a major alteration or have been required for cause.
2.       Elevators installed between June 5, 1947 and December 1, 1988 are only required to have ladders or stairways if the pit is over 4 ft (1.22m) in depth.

Note that the first two sentences of 3016(d)(4) is italicized text which is defined in the opening paragraph of Group II:
      Italicized paragraphs, sentences, or phrases apply to all existing elevators while non-italicized apply to elevators installed after 1970 or after the date the regulation was adopted.

So, how does the logic of the state inspector’s decision work?  Well, first the pit is 38” in depth, which is greater than the 36” depth trigger indicating a ladder is required.  However, the elevator was originally installed with the construction of the building following the 1906 earthquake and fire, almost 40 years before 1947.  That would suggest the exception no. 1 would apply and a ladder would not be required.  However, let’s look at the second half of exception no. 1, “unless they have undergone a major alteration or have been required for cause.”  This effectively reverses the exception under two conditions:  a “major alteration” or “required for cause.” 

Since the adoption of ASME A17.1-1996 effective October 25, 1998 the state has followed the precedent that that which is altered must comply with the Alteration sections of A17.1 (with some exceptions), initially the 1996 code and after May 1, 2008, the 2004 code.  Conversely, that which is not altered is not required to be brought up to these newer standards.  I had thought that was the case with pit ladders as well.  In this sense, CCR section 3016(d)(4) is one of the rare examples where, apparently, if a “major alteration” is performed on the elevator – no matter what that alteration entails – a pit ladder must be installed if the pit depth is over 3 ft. and the elevator was installed before June 5, 1947.  Change the interlocks, put in a pit ladder… 

The other exception to the exception is “required for cause.”  I’m not quite sure what this means other than possibly if the state says they want a ladder in a pit; then you have to put a ladder in the pit.  Possibly someone out there can shed more light on what this means – please write a comment.

Now let’s look at the exception no. 2.  If the original elevator was installed between June 5, 1947 and December 1, 1988 and the pit depth was 4 ft. or less, then you would never have to add a ladder – even if the elevator underwent a major alteration.  Note the major alteration exception to the exception only applies to elevators installed before 1947, per exception no. 1.  Also, there is no “required for cause” exception in exception no. 2 – so apparently the state can’t require a ladder for cause on these elevators where they can on the older ones.  It’s pretty clear that this entire section and especially the exception don’t make much sense. 

You might ask, OK, when does the A17.1 code come into play?  Apparently it is only triggered in an alteration when the pit itself is altered, say deepened or widened, etc.  This is important because some of the rules change with the national code.  Note section 3016(d)(4) finishes with the provision, “The ladder shall be located adjacent to the strike jamb of and accessible from the access door to the pit.”  There is no requirement that the ladder be on the strike side of the entrance in A17.1-2004, section 2.2.4, which instead says, “located within reach of the access door.”  It also says, “The nearest point of the ladder shall be within 1 000 mm (39”), measured horizontally from the means to unlock the egress door from the pit.”  The A17.1 code makes more sense than the Title 8 language as center-parting elevator doors have no strike jambs.  On some smaller, older elevators including winding drums no ladder – not even retractable ladders – will fit on the strike side whereas they will fit on the pass side.  So, with the A17.1 code as long as the pick-up rollers are within 39” of the near side ladder upright, the ladder can be on the pass side of the entrance whereas this is not allowed in Title 8.

Another major difference between the two codes is the potential ladder width.  CCR Title 8, section 3016(d)(5) references a separate state ladder code (I have a copy if you want to see it).  This ladder code wasn’t written specifically for elevators but for general commercial applications.  As such, it’s pretty rigid dimensionally, requiring a minimum 16” rung and riser I.D. width.  The A17.1 section 2.2.4 allows a narrower ladder, referencing a 12” and even a 9” width if necessary due to existing obstructions.  I ran into this situation on a major alteration of a 1920s 750 lbs capacity elevator with a 48” pit.  The contractor wanted to add a 12” wide Retracta Ladder™ retractable pit ladder as a 16” wide ladder would not fit.  The state senior engineer indicated that unless the pit itself was altered allowing the application of the A17.1-2004, section 2.2.4 rules, then the CCR Title 8 section 3016(d)(5) would apply, which requires a 16” ladder width.  The project scope of work did not include altering the actual pit, therefore the only solutions were to either apply for a permanent variance to install a 12” wide ladder or not install a ladder.  A permanent variance is a somewhat involved, time consuming and expensive process – gross overkill on a matter such as this.  The unfortunate result was not to install a ladder and henceforth the service technician will have to fetch a step ladder or risk climbing in and out of a 4 ft. pit.  This is one of the finest examples I’ve seen of where the application and enforcement of obsolete codes decreases or diminishes safety.

According to several insurance brokers I’ve spoken with who insure the elevator industry, they all tell me that injuries sustained involving accidents entering and existing elevator pits are among there most common and costly insurance claims.  Many of these involve major injuries, permanent disabilities and even deaths.  Some companies I know have a policy to install ladders in every existing elevator they take on service.  The cost to install these ladders is negligible compared to the cost of lost work time, workers’ compensation, legal expenses, etc.  California DOSH-Elevator Unit has recognized the benefit in installing pit ladders both in the CCR code language discussed above and the recent issuance of the Circular Letter #E-10-02 providing the criteria for installing retractable elevator pit ladders.  Possibly another Circular Letter could be written to clean up the logic in CCR Title 8, section 3016(d)(4), making it clearer when a ladder is required in an alteration and preferably by simply referencing the A17.1-2004 code criteria for all ladder installations.

Comments are more than welcome – please write.

Your Code Reporter
Rich Blaska

Thursday, December 2, 2010

SF Fire Marshal Clarifies Smoke Detector Programming v. CBC Code

Here's another great contribution care of Bill Mitchell, Schindler Elevator Company.  Mr. Mitchell via email asked the San Francisco Fire Marshal, Ms. Barbara Schultheis, to clarify the required smoke detector (products of combustion) programming vis-à-vis the California Building Code (CBC). 

Mr. Mitchell’s question to Ms. Schultheis was:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barbara

Thank you for taking a moment to speak to me in regards to the new elevator code requirement for smoke detectors.  Here is how the code reads.

Under the previous code A17.1-1996 we followed the rule that no device, other than the Phase I switch(es) or the smoke detectors in the elevator lobbies, machine room, or hoistway (Rule 211.3b), shall initiate Phase I operation.
Rule 211.3 Firefighters' Service - Automatic Elevators 211.3b Smoke Detectors.
(1) The activation of a smoke detector in any elevator lobby, other than at the designated level, shall cause all cars that serve that lobby to return nonstop to the designated level.
The key words here are “cars that serve that lobby”
(4) Elevators shall only react to the first smoke detector zone which is activated for that group.

Under the current code A17.1-2004
2.27.3.1 Phase I Emergency Recall Operation
2.27.3.1.4 Only the “FIRE RECALL” switch(es) or fire alarm initiating device located at floors that are served by the elevator, or in the hoistway, or in the elevator machine room (see 2.27.3.2) shall initiate Phase I Emergency Recall Operation.
The key words “cars that serve that lobby” have been changed to read “at floors that are served by the elevator”

Under the latest (not yet adopted by DOSH) code A17.1-2007
2.27.3.1 Phase I Emergency Recall Operation
2.27.3.1.4 Only the “FIRE RECALL” switch(es) or fire alarm initiating device located at floors that are served by the elevator, or in the hoistway, or in an elevator machine room, or a control space, or a control room (see 2.27.3.2) shall initiate Phase I Emergency Recall Operation.
Some changes made in 2005 but still keeping the phrase “at floors that are served by the elevator”

This is a big difference and really does need to be clarified.  As I read it and others in the elevator industry read it this goes from smoke detectors located in elevator lobby’s only to ALL fire alarm initiating devices on the floor.  As I understand it the wording “fire alarm initiating device” was used so as to include heat sensors but was it also used to include pull stations?  I don’t see a clear definition of fire alarm initiating device in the text of this code.


2.27.3.2 Phase I Emergency Recall Operation by Fire Alarm Initiating Devices
2.27.3.2.1 In jurisdictions not enforcing the NBCC, fire alarm initiating devices used to initiate Phase I Emergency Recall Operation shall be installed in conformance with the requirements of NFPA 72, and shall be located
(a) at each floor served by the elevator
(b) in the associated elevator machine room
(c) in the elevator hoistway, when sprinklers are located in those hoistways
2.27.3.2.2 In jurisdictions enforcing the NBCC, automatic Emergency Recall Operation shall be permitted when the following devices, complying with the requirements in the NBCC, initiate the operation:
(a) smoke detectors installed in each elevator lobby, or the building fire alarm system
(b) smoke detectors installed in the elevator lobby at the designated level, if that floor area is not sprinklered throughout
(c) smoke detectors installed in the machine room if the machine room is sprinklered

I am very interested in your opinion on this changing issue and do need to get some clarity as to why this wording was changed and if indeed we are going to follow this change in programming of smoke detectors.


cc John Guhl of CAL FIRE

Respectfully submitted

_____________________________________________________________
Bill Mitchell | Technical Support - Northern California Local Code Rep Phone 510.382.2213 | Mobile 415.238.2946 | Fax 510.382.2250 bill.mitchell@us.schindler.com

Schindler Elevator Corp. | Field Support
555 McCormick Street
|San Leandro, CA 94577-1107, USA www.us.schindler.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ms. Schultheis promptly replied to Mr. Mitchell’s enquiry with the following:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill-

NPPA 72, 2007 states:

6.16.3.3  Unless otherwise required by the authority having jurisdiction, only the elevator lobby, elevator hoistway, and the elevator machine room smoke detectors, or other automatic fire detection as permitted by 6.16.3.7, shall be used to recall elevators for fire fighter's service.

(6.16.3.7 If ambient conditions prohibit installation of automatic smoke detection, other automatic fire detection shall be permitted.)

It is my position that when there are enclosed elevator lobbies, only those smoke detectors listed in 6.16.3.3 should recall elevators.  My staff will be enforcing this as such.  When there are unenclosed lobbies, the situation will be looked at on a case by case basis.

Please do not reprogram other devices to recall elevators unless you have gotten specific direction from the fire department to do so.


Thanks.

Barbara Schultheis
Fire Marshal
San Francisco Fire Department
698 2nd St
.
San Francisco, CA  94107
(415) 558-3320 ph.
(415) 558-3322 fax
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mr. Mitchell’s replied back closing the enquiry with the following:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Barbara

Thank you for your quick response to this issue.  I will let all of my subcontractors know that the activation of a smoke detector in an elevator lobby, shall cause all elevators of that group that serve that lobby are to recall and not cars in other groups unless they share the same lobby.  This is how we have been doing things for years.  Thank you for your clarification.

Regards
_____________________________________________________________
Bill Mitchell | Technical Support - Northern California Local Code Rep Phone 510.382.2213 | Mobile 415.238.2946 | Fax 510.382.2250 bill.mitchell@us.schindler.com

Schindler Elevator Corp. | Field Support
555 McCormick Street
|San Leandro, CA 94577-1107, USA www.us.schindler.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I know this is a rather lengthy blog post and I gave some thought to trying to shortening it by condensing the correspondence.  But in review I thought the correspondence itself stated the matter perfectly and I preferred the complete detail to any abbreviation.   Thanks again Bill and Barbara – this is a great piece of code clarification, one many of us needed to have.

Your Code Reporter,
Rich Blaska

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

NCNSFPE Lunch Meeting w/ SF Fire Marshal - Closed

Dear Members,

A follow-up to my last post, the NCNSFPE Lunch Meeting w/ SF Fire Marshal is now closed to registration.  It is so popular that they have run out of room.

Cheers,
Rich Blaska

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Northern CA/Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers

Dear Members,

The Northern CA/Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers is holding a lunch meeting in San Francisco this Friday regarding the use of elevators by fire departments.  See below their invitation:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please join us for a presentation on the San Francisco Fire Fighter Elevator.  San Francisco Fire Marshal Barbara Schultheis will be presenting on this topic. 

The use of elevators by fire departments has become more common with the introduction of the building code requirements in the 2009 International Building Code (IBC).  San Francisco Fire Department has had a firefighter elevator requirement (Administrative Bulletin) since 2008.  Fire Marshal Schultheis will present on the firefighter elevator requirements and the process for adoption into the San Francisco Fire Code. 

Please visit the NCNSFPE website for more details and to prepay.

Price
$35.00 - Member/Non-Member
$10.00 - Students

Please contact John Stauder, NCN SFPE 2nd VP with questions - 925-938-3550 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To obtain more information about this event or to RSVP, go to their website at:  http://ncnsfpe.org/events.html.  Or you can go straight to the Evite at:  http://www.evite.com/pages/invite/viewInvite.jsp?event=NVEZEHPEWEBPLGKPKOEZ

Once again I have Bill Mitchell of Schindler Elevator to thank for this tip.  Thanks Bill!

Cheers,
Rich Blaska

Saturday, October 23, 2010

DOSH-Elevator Unit Meeting Notice

Dear Members,

Debra Tutor, Principal Engineer DOSH-Elevator, Ride and Tramway Unit has sent out a meeting notice that reads as follows:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

October 10, 2010

Meeting Notice

The Division of Occupational Safety and Health will hold a meeting to discuss work covered by CLC Section 7311.1 and 7311.2 that defines work on conveyances that requires certification.


This meeting will take place at the following time, date, and location:

Place:  Elihu Harris State Building
           
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1304
            Oakland, CA 94612

Date:  Wednesday November 10, 2010

Time:  1:00 P.M.

The agenda will include discussion of the clarification of work to be performed by certified mechanics in elevator machine rooms, hoistways, pits, cartops and car enclosures.  In addition, the dismantling and/or removal of conveyances and testing requirements will be addressed.

The Division of Occupational Safety and Health cordially invites all interested parties to attend this meeting.  We look forward to your participation in this discussion.


Sincerely,


Debra Tudor, Principal Engineer
Elevator, Ride, and Tramway Unit

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As the letter says, these meetings are open to all interested parties.  I, frankly, don't know any more about the agenda or intent of the meeting.  If anyone out there can shed any light on this, please post a comment.

Cheers,
Rich Blaska

Thursday, September 9, 2010

NCEIG Lunch Includes Code Session

Dear Members,

Our first NCEIG meeting after the summer break was held this Wednesday. As there were no scheduled speakers the lunch was largely devoted to conversations regarding the elevator code. Yours truly started it out by discussing several new products from Smart Elevator Tech, LLC - a little self serving for sure as it's my company! There was a veiled attempt to relate the products to the elevator code, such as the Retracta Ladder™ retractable elevator pit ladder meeting A17.1-2004 requirement for the ladder rungs to be 7" from the pit wall line. There were comments that some inspectors are insisting on the 7" requirement whereas others are not. This might be due to the timeline of jobs being designed with standard pits long before the new rule. I also discussed the Adjusta Ladder™ which is a stationary pit ladder that comes equipped with brackets that allow the center of the rung to wall dimension to be set from 4.5" to 7" in 0.5" increments. The argument being that even where the code allows the rung to be at 4.5", why not increase the dimension where there is extra room to do so. We have to remind ourselves that the codes are minimum requirements and if we can increase safety, allow for more toe space, we should do so.

I also discussed another Smart Elevator Tech, LLC product, the Low-Profile Fishplate™ and well as the "Ladder Rail Reinforcement" solutions - both designed to bring pre-seismic code elevator guiderails into compliance with the current seismic code. Other seismic deficiencies were discussed including rail brackets that aren't welded or pinned, non-compliant, stamped metal slide clips, weak bracket designs, etc. We discussed how common it is for major alterations to provide new control systems, fixtures, door equipment and often very expensive cab interior finish upgrades - yet no consideration is given to the major seismic and structural deficiencies of the guide rail stacks. The seismic code is not retroactive so it isn't required to be done, even when the elevators undergo major alterations. I think we agreed that at minimum the owner should be informed that her/his elevators may contain substantial seismic and structural deficiencies that could fail and result in substantial down time, expense and possibly personal injury in a seismic event if not rectified. I suggested getting the owner to sign-off on not rectifying the deficiencies, which would more likely motivate them to make the necessary repairs considering the potential liabilities.

There were also discussions on the great variability of the different DOSH-Elevator Unit offices and inspectors in how they approach inspections. The new norm seems to be that many inspectors leave the job on the first encounter of a deficiency or are instructed to do so by their superiors. Then the inspection becomes a Consultation at twice the fee, yet there really no "consulting" provided - just, "this failed, I'm leaving." If the company has to suffer the Consultation fee and a follow-up Inspection fee, it would certainly be preferable if the inspector would stay in that first instance and finish going through the conveyances to see if there are any other issues to address. This would appear to be an issue to take up with the seniors.

Finally there was discussion about using the NCEIG organization as a better communication tool between the local industry and the AHJ – even possibly a negotiating or lobbying vehicle with some heft. Certainly the goal would not be to antagonize the state but possibly to apply some pressure, powers of persuasion and the like. I'm in favor of this. As a start, members should send into NCEIG code questions, issues, complaints, examples of inconsistent practices and enforcement, etc. These would be assembled and submitted to Ms. Tudor for her study and comment.
The Code Reporter welcomes all comments, suggestions, corrections, admonishments, etc. Use the Comments feature - let's make this thing work.

Cheers,
Rich Blaska

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Symposium on the Use of Elevators During Emergencies

NCEIG Member Bill Mitchell wrote to me and others about an upcoming symposium on the use of elevators during emergencies:
 

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Opening Blog - Welcome

Welcome to the new NCEIG blog space. I am your NCEIG Code Reporter, Rich Blaska of RCB Elevator Consulting, LLC and Smart Elevator Tech, LLC.

My goal will be to post and reply to blogs on this space about news, rulings and updates concerning the elevator code. These may be local, state or national elevator or related codes.

I don't claim to be an expert on the codes but I try to keep up with what's going on whenever possible. I've been asked by the board of NCEIG to give this a try - so let's see how it goes.

Feel free to contribute with code news of your own, comments about what has been blogged or questions you might have. This should be both informative and fun.

Cheers,
Rich Blaska

Monday, August 23, 2010

Welcome to the new NCEIG blog space!

Check back for the latest news on the California elevator safety codes.