Revisiting the theme of my
last Blog Report from May regarding DOSH-Elevator Unit - Circular Letters, many
of you may be aware the Division has “Withdrawn” their Circular
Letter E-11-01 - Certification Requirements, issued November 16, 2011 (http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/ertcrltr.html).
Rumors abound as to what was
the impetus for the Division to withdraw this Circular Letter (CL). Some say one or more of the majors was
threatening to sue the State regarding the statement in the CL clarifying the
requirement, “monthly fire phase one and
two testing must be performed by a certified competent conveyance mechanic.”
The speculation is that these majors,
and possibly minors as well, take issue with two aspects of this
requirement: One, that this testing must
be performed by their CCCM mechanics; and two, that it must be performed “monthly.” On the first, the companies would have to
raise their service rates to cover the additional labor time to perform this
testing. On the second, the companies’
mechanic would actually have to visit the job every month.
It’s been many years, decades
likely, since the standard full service maintenance contracts by the majors (and
many of the minors as well) used the word “monthly” with reference to frequency
of maintenance. It has been universally
replaced with the word “periodic” or “as required…” – or some similar,
undefined term. Many tout their somewhat
inscrutable, off-site elevator monitoring services as an effective substitution
for more frequent physical visits to the equipment. Their HQ computer will tell them when the
units need servicing... It’s curious to
me that I’ve never seen dirtier pits and car tops since the advent of these
systems. It’s all about competition – or
is it about profits?
Back to the first issue, the
question of whether the code requires elevator Fire Service Phase I & II be
tested by a CCCM. As the original CL
references, the governing authority derives from the California Labor Code,
Sections 7300-7324.2. You can find this code
language at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=07001-08000&file=7300-7324.2. My re-reading of this code failed to find
anything specific to fire service testing.
The closest the language comes to making this a requirement is section
7311.2 with the wording, “…any person
who, without supervision, erects, constructs, installs, alters, tests,
maintains, services or repairs, removes, or dismantles any conveyance covered
by this chapter, shall be certified as a certified competent conveyance mechanic
by the division.” The operative word
in that language is “tests.”
This raises my point of my
previous blog article, does the writing of Circular Letters by the Division
constitute “writing code” as my old friend Al Tafazoli contented (and therefore
avoided their use)? Or, is the function
of CLs to help clarify the code as written – which is my understanding. Where it gets sticky is when the code is
insufficiently specific, such as whether the word “tests” in the Labor Code
extends to the monthly testing of fire service.
Admittedly, my study of the code on this point has not been exhaustive
but my current interpretation would be that it would apply and that the CL was
accurate. Possibly someone out there can
convince me otherwise…
In addition to the fire
service testing, this CL speaks to an array of other issues concerning who can
legally work on elevators. It made clear
that non-CCCM tradespersons could not perform cab alterations, which had been a
common and potentially dangerous occurrence.
Examples of hazards to these non-certified personnel could include
electrocution from drilling holes through the cab walls or canopy into unseen
electrical devices. A clear danger to
the riding public has been the frequent use of non-fire & smoke rated
materials, un-rated glass and improperly secured materials in elevator cab
interiors. A very serious problem has
been system unbalancing and overloading of elevator cars with the use of excessively
heavy materials in cab installations and upgrades. I’ve seen a number of elevators with a negative
over-balance, causing excessive drive sheave and rope wear from traction loss
due to this error. The intent of only
allowing this work to be performed by CCCMs is that they are professionally
trained & certified and understand the codes and dynamics of elevators.
In summary, I disagree with
the withdrawal of DOSH Circular Letter E-11-01.
This CL served a very useful and correct purpose and, I would argue, was
needed to clarify vagueness in the code language. Note that the withdrawal of this CL did not
change or alter the underlying code. The
Labor Code and Elevator Safety Orders remain as written. It didn’t make it legal for non-CCCM millwrights
to install elevator cab interiors or demolition crews to remove old elevators. What the withdrawal of this CL did, in my
opinion, was to put back in place the uncertainty that existed previously, that
the CL had intended – and succeeded briefly – in removing. Even worse, some
believe it vindicated the wrong practices of the past.
If indeed there was a specific
problem with some of the language in this Circular Letter, then the better
solution would be to amend it to make it right.
I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know the whole story behind this
controversy. I welcome anyone out there
to post a comment, or if they prefer, call me privately if you have more information
on this subject.
Cheers,
Your Code Reporter
Rich Blaska
