The Code Reporter

NCEIG Christmas Dinner Party and Old Timers Reunion

2011-11-29T10:52:00.001-08:00

Hello Elevator People!

Yes,the Annual NCEIG Christmas Dinner Party and OldTimers Reunion is just around the corner so make your plans now! In thepast we have always asked our members to do a bit of outreach to our retiredindustry colleagues with some success. This year let’s try to get as manyretirees as possible! Remember, our industry retirees and their spouses canattend this party without charge, they are our honored guests after all.

Wewould also like to ask everyone that is planning to attend to RSVP by nolater than Friday, December 2^nd, 2011 by sending an E-mailto: ebleyle@bleyleelevator.com.

Andour President, Erik Bleyle, has also requested that, if possible, our members(suppliers and otherwise) bring some items to donate for the Christmas partyraffle.

So, get out your Roladex (old timers know what those are) and dial-up (wait, phones don't have "dials" anymore) all of the guys (were there any gals then?) who used to run you around when you were a 50%'r. Know any old branch managers, construction/service managers, salesmen, drill rig operators, state inspectors, etc. Get them all and their significant others to the Christmas party. Truly the best event of the year for NCEIG is hearing the tall tales of these living legends - said by someone who's loosing his hair and is not so young anymore himself. It's always great fun and the food & drinks are great too.

See you at Sinbad's!

Cheers,
Your Code Reporter
Rich Blaska

Changes to California Shunt-Trip Rules

2011-11-29T10:44:00.001-08:00

I've been informed by my good friend, Bill Mitchell, SchindlerElevator Corp., of a major change in the requirement for shunt-trip powerdisconnection in California. The Officeof the State Fire Marshal (SFM) has made changes to the 2010 edition of theCalifornia Building Code (CBC), based on the 2009 International Building Code(IBC). The entire text of the changes isavailable online at:

http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/codedevelopment/pdf/2010interimcodeadoption/Interim%20Code%20Adoption%20Timeline/Part-2_ET_20110701.pdf

You might note that the title of this document reads:

FINAL EXPRESS TERMS FOR PROPOSEDBUILDING STANDARDS OF THE OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL REGARDING THE 2010CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24, PART 2 2010INTERIM RULEMAKING CYCLE

However, a representative of the SFM indicated that thesechanges to the regulations have formally been adopted by the CaliforniaBuilding Standard Committee. You maywish to verify this on your own but I am assured that this is now a part of thenew California Fire Code.

I’ve copied and pasted below the specific section of thereferenced document:

CHAPTER 30 - ELEVATORS ANDCONVEYING SYSTEMS

3006.4.1 Automatic sprinklersystem. Automatic sprinklers shall not be required to be installed in theelevator hoistway, elevator machine room, elevator machinery space, elevatorcontrol space, or elevator control room where all the following are met:

1. Approved smoke detectors shall be installedin the elevator hoistway, elevator machine room, elevator machinery spaces,elevator control spaces, or elevator control rooms and connected to thebuilding fire alarm system in accordance with Section 907.

2. Activation of any smoke detector located inthe elevator hoistway, elevator machine room, elevator machinery space,elevator control space, or elevator control room shall cause the actuation ofthe building fire alarm notification appliances in accordance with 907.

3. Activation of any smoke detector located inthe elevator hoistway, elevator machine room, elevator machinery space,elevator control space, or elevator control room shall cause all elevatorshaving any equipment located in that elevator hoistway, elevator machine room,elevator machinery space, elevator control space, or elevator control room torecall nonstop to the appropriate designated floor in accordance with CCR Title8, Division 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 6, Elevator Safety Orders.

4. The elevator machineroom, elevator machinery space, elevator control space, or elevator controlroom shall be enclosed with fire barriers constructed in accordance withSection 707 or horizontal assemblies constructed in accordance with Section712, or both. The fire-resistance rating shall not be less than the requiredrating of the hoistway enclosure served by the machinery. Openings in the firebarriers shall be protected with assemblies having a fire protection rating notless than that required for the hoistway enclosure doors. The exceptions to Section 3006.4 shall notapply.

5. The building fire alarm system shall bemonitored by an approved supervising station in accordance with 907.

6. An approved sign shall be permanentlydisplayed in the elevator machine room, elevator machinery space, elevatorcontrol space, or elevator control room in a conspicuous location with aminimum of 1½ inch letters on a contrasting background, stating: NO COMBUSTIBLESTORAGE PERMITTED IN THIS ROOM By Orderof the Fire Marshal [or name of fire authority]

This is great news as most in our industry have long arguedagainst having machine rooms, control rooms and hoistways sprinkled and thepower shunt-tripped. I’m proceeding withthe engineering of a number of elevator major alterations where we are verifyingor correcting the fire-resistive nature of the elevator spaces and removing allof the sprinklers.

As always, I must qualify that you should independentlyverify all code questions with the proper authorities having jurisdiction.

Cheers,
Your Code Reporter
Rich Blaska

Rope Brakes, Platform Guards & Shallow Pits

2011-06-06T16:59:00.000-07:00

I always knew them as toe guards. Like many things in elevators, the codes and AHJs have different names for things than I had known them to be. Spreader brackets are actually called “tie brackets.” Sump pumps are called “water removal systems.” We won't even go into what I learned as the name for hoistway door unlocking devices - which are disallowed in California anyway.

Toe guards are called "Platform Guards (Aprons)" in ASME A17.1, section 2.15.9 as well as in CCR Title 8, Rule 3033(i). I guess calling them toe guards comes from the perspective of an elevator person who might run cars up and down on hoistway access and without the toe guard, it would seem a lot easier to run the platform down on your toe if your were absent minded enough to stick your foot over the edge of the hoistway sill. There was probably even a point early in my career were I actually thought this was the purpose of a platform guard – which is what I will call it that for the rest of this blog.

As I'm sure all of you know, the real purpose of a platform guard is to prevent elevator passengers from going down the hoistway in the event they become entrapped in an immobilized elevator. In brief, what happens is that an elevator malfunctions and comes to rest above a floor. The passenger attempts to exit the car by forcing open the doors and climbing out to the floor below. For example, say the car is 4 feet above the landing and it is an older car not equipped with a door restrictor device. Depending on the door operator, it may be fairly easy to palm the car door open. It wouldn't take too much trial and error to figure out how to open the hoistway door for most systems; usually it's a matter of pulling on the pickup rollers or pushing on the roller lever to release the swing door interlock.

Then what happens is the passenger attempts to let themselves down to the floor below by hanging onto the car sill and hoisting themselves down. This is the rub. If you’ve ever suspended yourself by your hands you know what happens. Your body will rotate forward toward the car platform due to the natural location of your body’s center of gravity. And where would that leave you – under the platform well within the hoistway. The plan was to lower oneself down to the floor but instead the hapless passenger finds themselves inside the hoistway sill and down they go… This is, I believe, the most common cause of death or major injury in elevator accidents.

Thus, the platform guard! I haven’t done the research to be able to tell you when this essential safety feature was added to the code (Dee, do you know?). I see early 20^th century elevators all the time with no platform guard, running, perfectly legally as this device was never made a retroactive requirement.   The code had been consistent for probably half a century requiring a platform guard with a height of “not less than the depth of the leveling or the truck zone, plus 3 inches.” The problem is that with a 7 foot typical entrance, that would leave ample room for one to get out of a car and still go under the platform guard and down the hoistway.

As no doubt all of you know, starting with the ASME A17.1-2000 code the ascending car overspeed and unintended car movement (ACO-UCM) protection has been a requirement. The platform guard section, 2.15.9, was modified to take into account the new ACO-UCM provision with the added requirement for a 48 inch platform guard. The logic here is that 48 inches is the maximum allowed car travel upon activation of ACO-UCM. The affect of this new code is that essentially all new traction elevators will have 48 inch platform aprons and pit deep enough to accommodate them.

All right, here’s the original reason I started this blog. How does all of this play out when altering an existing elevator to add ACO-UCM? There are five (5) alteration events that trigger the requirement to add ACO-UCM (Can you name these? If you give up, go to my website articles to find the answer).   It is widely believed that when altering an existing elevator and ACO-UCM is added that a 48 inch platform apron is also required. Not true.

This gets to a very common error in reading the elevator code. When altering an existing elevator, people will often automatically reference the full body of the current elevator code, A17.1, Part 2 or 3. Wrong. When altering an existing elevator one first must go to what local or state codes that applies. In California, one must start with CCR Title 8 which in turn currently references ASME A17.1-2004, Alterations, Section 8.7. This section will send you wherever you will need to go for any work performed, based on what is being altered.

In our discussion here, for instance, say the work is the classic new fixtures, door equipment and controls. The existing elevator is a Ward-Lenard system with a motor-generator and a DC motor on a geared machine. The alteration includes replacing the M-G with a Vector AC system and installing a new AC motor on the machine. One of the sections you will have to go to is 8.7.2.27.5 Change in Type of Motion Control. To confirm this go to A17.1, Part 1, Section 1.3 Definitions, “control, motion” which lists and defines all of the different types of motion control. The elevator will be modified from a “control, generator field” to a “control, variable voltage, variable frequency (VVVF).”

Note section 8.7.2.27.5(e) sends you to section 2.19 ACO-UCM. This is the most common trigger that requires the addition of an emergency brake, which if most often met when the machine is being retained by adding a rope brake. Further note that nowhere in section 2.19 does it send you to section 2.15.9, the requirement for a 48 inch platform guard. Nor does any other part of section 8.7 send you there for the scope of work described. The authors of the code were very clever in how they constructed these code revisions so as not to create a trap whereby one would be required to deepen a pit simply because one wants to install new controls and motor on an existing elevator.

There are a number of alteration sections in 8.7 that do send you to 2.15.9, such as 8.7.2.15.2 and 8.7.2.16.4. These clarify the requirement that one “shall conform to 2.15.9 only to the extent the existing pit shall permit…” Section 8.7.2.27.5 probably should include this same language but it doesn’t. I make it a practice to do it anyway – install a new platform guard of the maximum length up to 48 inches, to the extent the existing pit depth will allow.

Another place this language should be included, but it isn’t, is section 8.7.2.15.1 Alterations to Car Frames and Platforms. That section simply sends you to 2.15 (which obviously includes 2.15.9). So, what does that mean? If one alters a platform, say cuts off 6 inches of the leading edge so as to install power-operated doors, does that then require you to deepen the pit so as to install a 48 inch platform guard? Also, what if you install a complete new platform on an existing elevator? Curiously, there is no language in 8.7 that specifically address a new platform, only alterations to car frames and platforms. I assume that section 8.7.2.15.1 includes replacing the platform as well as altering one. I recommend getting a clarification from your AHJ for this code omission. The times I’ve done that the inspector rightly uses the logic clearly set out elsewhere in the alteration section and accepts that a platform apron of the maximum length be installed.

My business, Smart Elevator Tech, LLC, manufactures and supplies unique elevator products that I have invented, such as the Retracta Ladder®, Low-Profile Fishplate™ and a Deflector Sheave Isolator™. I’m beginning to get a number of requests to invent a viable retractable platform apron. I’ve given it some thought and, at least for the moment, have decided to pass. First, why would anyone need one as they would not be needed in an alteration – as I’ve just shown. For new construction, all companies would have the same requirement and should be able to specify the necessary pit depth that will be built. Finally, there are many complications to designing a rise and fall or hinged platform apron that would be viable. It would have to be activated with each run to the lowest landing, which is more often the lobby – the highest traffic landing. There would be huge wear factors. It would have to be failsafe, probably switched so the elevator couldn’t run if the device failed (or simply wore out). And that’s just the beginning of the problems with such a device.

Cheers,
Your Code Reporter
Rich Blaska

Rope Grippers and the State

2011-02-14T09:50:00.000-08:00

The issue of the requirement to provide Ascending Car Overspeed and Unintended Car Movement Protection - Section 2.19 on alterations has always been a little confusing and somewhat controversial. I had written an article about this on my website some years ago, which I’ve just updated: http://www.blaska.com/rope_brake.htm.

With the time that had passed since California has adopted (by reference) the ASME A17.1-2004 code, most of us are now up to speed on what triggers this requirement when altering an elevator. Probably the only remaining questions are:

· what product to use

· how to mount it

· does it require engineering

As to what product to use, unless you are installing a new gearless machine, probably the best solution is to install a rope brake. Some of the rope brakes currently available are the Hollister-Whitney Rope Gripper™, the BODE Rope Brake or the Draka Sure Stop™. The new PMAC gearless machines now all have the emergency brake built in, an ideal solution. Hollister-Whitney has begun to offer some of their traditional geared machines with integral factory mounts for their Rope Gripper™. But if you are retaining the machine, this will usually mean mounting a rope brake of some type in some place.

How to mount a rope brake can be quite simple or very involved. I wrote about this in some detail in my article, http://www.blaska.com/rope_brake.htm, so I won’t repeat it here.

Does mounting a rope brake require engineering? At least in California, I thought the answer was no or not necessarily. It was my understanding from the principal engineer, back when A17.1-2004 was adopted, that full engineering submission was not required. However, if the inspector suspects the installation and requests engineering, then it must be supplied. This may have changed. Currently we are seeing, as far as we can tell, that all Southern California Cal/OSHA - Elevator Unit offices are requiring specific installation engineering, wet signed by a California licensed professional engineer. This must be supplied at the time of the final inspection if not submitted earlier.

Based on an email thread I’ve seen, it appears Cal/OSHA - Elevator Unit offices throughout the state may now or will soon be requiring full engineering of non-factory installed rope brake installations. On alterations, this engineering apparently is to include calcs on not just the mounting brackets or framework but also that to which it is attached. For instance, if the rope brake is mounted on channels that are then through-bolted to the existing machine beams, those machine beams must be certified for the rope brake loading. (Actually, the machine beams will never see loads from a rope brake that are greater than exerted by the base elevator system – but this appears to be the requirement.) As to the criteria, for example if a Group II elevator is altered to include the addition of a rope brake, then the alteration must comply with Group IV criteria – meaning A17.1-2004. This means that all that is altered must comply with the criteria of Group IV / A17.1-2004 including the loading and strength standards.

You might want to check with your local Cal/OSHA - Elevator Unit office as to what they will require for your alteration, including whether formal engineering is required. If it is, find out whether it should be submitted in advance or simply available to the inspector at the time of the final inspection.

Some would argue that engineering is a good idea even if the state doesn’t mandate it. The rope brake loading varies from 4,000 lbs. to 16,000 lbs. – not an inconsiderable amount.

If anyone out there has any additional information on this topic, I would be grateful to hear it. Feel free to call me (415) 819-5744 or email me at rich@blaska.com. Let me know if you prefer the information to be added to this blog or kept in confidence. Also, feel free to write a comment by clicking the link below (it would let me know someone is reading these…).

Cheers,

Rich Blaska

"FOR CAUSE” & “SPECIAL ORDERS"

2011-01-11T09:55:00.000-08:00

Today we have a guest post from Dee Swerrie:

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

“FOR CAUSE” & “SPECIAL ORDERS”

After reading Rich's Blog, I think a few words regarding, “for cause” could well be in order. Also a few about “special orders” as “for cause” often generate them. What I am about to say is based on my experience and is not necessarily how the current Elevator Principal Engineer, Debbie Tudor, may feel or mean by the same phrases. Possibly, if she reads this and has the time, she will share how she interprets and applies them.

Keep in mind:

Elevator conveyances are man made vertical transportation devices. Man made devices, as all of us know, sometimes run into problems performing as they are intended to for various reasons. Sometimes, even when they function as intended, it becomes obvious that there is a better and/or safer way to accomplish the same thing. Following prolonged operation, wear and tear effects cause unintended problems. Sometimes a device fails and needs to be replaced. For a multitude of reasons some changes not covered by an existing order (section) may be necessary.
Elevator codes, rules, regulations, and jurisdictional authority's, all came about years after the elevators, or “lifts”, became recognized and acceptable vertical transportation devices. Why? “For cause”! Elevators and elevator enclosures were involved with people getting hurt!

Remember, the purpose of taking jurisdiction and promulgating safety codes or orders is for an important reason. That reason? ̶“SAFETY” ̶ Elevator Inspectors do more than just inspect elevators for code compliance. Actually that is the easier part of the job. The real reason the inspector visits each elevator each year, or more frequently, is to determine if it is safe for the unit to remain in use. ̶“SAFETY” ̶ I say this, not to minimize the codes and rules promulgated to which elevators must be be constructed and maintained. Actually the codes, rules, or orders, do provide elevators that seldom need something unique, but it happens, thus ̶“FOR CAUSE” ̶.

An example or so:

An individual was observed opening a sliding hoistway door and falling into the pit on a quite old APB passenger elevator. A competent investigation determined the old interlocks were worn and faulty. Also determined was the fact that the wooden door jamb was worn and sagging. The AHJ ordered the owner to install new approved interlocks on all landings, and to have the door frames refurbished to ensure the doors were properly hung and operating. “For cause!” It did not need to state “for cause” on the order; the reason was quite obvious to every one concerned.
An individual was observed holding the sliding doors of a relatively up to date elevator installation of a Selective-Collective passenger elevator from completely closing. Then the individual slid the door open to step into the car but instead stepped into a void and fell. A competent investigation determined that there had previously been some problems with the elevator getting stalled. The service mechanic had found a faulty door interlock contact and fixed it and since then elevator had functioned quite well. The investigator delved deeper and determined the elevator was older than it appeared, having been installed in the late forties and since been modernized. The mechanic when fixing the elevator following the call back had found a second set of contacts in the interlock, that solved his problem, just change the conductors to the unused contacts and all was well. The AHJ ordered that the elevator be provided with new, up to date, approved interlocks. The AHJ allowed for a second option: remove all interlocks, remove all second sets of contacts, refurbish the interlocks leaving out the second set of contacts, prior to reinstalling the interlocks. “For cause”

Two similar occurrences, but for differing causes. In the first case it was an older building with much wood construction and the interlock were old and obsolete. The service company had to have replacement parts fabricated, and all in use had the contacts bent some varying amounts to make things work. In the second case the building was in quite good condition being mostly concrete construction. However the elevators installed had dual function interlocks. Many younger elevator mechanics do not know, or forget, that the older car switch elevators that had an night time feature to allow automatic operation; that during the time the operator was running the elevator the interlock would make up at 4 inches, but under automatic operation the closed position for the elevator doors was less than ½ inch, therefore the double set of contacts in the interlock. Of course with the closed position of car doors being two inches or less, no one was aware that the car could start prior to the hoistway doors being closed and locked. The person holding the doors from closing held them within that 4 inch distance and as soon as the door contact made, the car left the landing, and the person could open the doors and step in. Incidentally, in California the AHJ mandated all elevators under the control of elevator operators had to have a pawl arrangement fastened to the leading edge of the hoistway door near the bottom and a bracket fastened to the sill which would keep any one from pulling the doors open until after they were fully closed and locked to prevent what happened in the example given.

Another case comes to mind of a basement traction machine that was observed to be lifting itself off of the floor somewhat when the elevator started to run. A valid reason for an order to correct? – For cause? What say you?

If you have a copy of Labor Code Section 7300 et seq., the chapter directly applicable to Elevators, you see in section 7318 that the division may prescribe and enforce special orders as well as general orders. The history note indicates this order was enacted in 1937. I rather think that that in itself is an indication that the need for special or “for cause” orders was recognized. Probably soon following the commencement of inspecting and enforcement of the original elevator safety orders in 1920.

Browsing thru the Labor Code, note that LC Section 6309 authorizes the division to investigate, even on its own motion, if it hears of anything indicating unsafe conditions at a facility. Normally such conditions come to the attention of the division through complaints but not always. LC Section 6313 is another interesting law that may be invoked by the division. It pertains to the investigation of accidents. LC Section 6430 is also interesting as it pertains to the falsely reporting of compliance with orders.

As with all laws, enforcement of every law that exists is not always the case, but if there is an accident, all the laws are available to the authority.

A word about LC 7318. I have no idea how or if Principal Elevator Engineer Debby Tudor intends to use it. I do know that when I was Principal, I kept tight control on its use. I also used some of the Labor code laws to good effect. But with discretion. There are times that a special order is necessary. However indiscriminate use can cause problems and that is why I felt it best to maintain tight control.

Dee Swerrie

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

Thanks Dee. Again, if for no other reason but to show that someone out there is reading this, please feel free to leave comments about this blog, past blogs, or anything that's on your mind regarding conveyances, codes, trends, etc.

Cheers,

Rich Blaska

The Code Reporter – Elevator Pit Ladder Craziness

2010-12-10T09:40:00.000-08:00

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

SF Fire Marshal Clarifies Smoke Detector Programming v. CBC Code

2010-12-02T21:43:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

NCNSFPE Lunch Meeting w/ SF Fire Marshal - Closed

2010-11-17T09:17:00.000-08:00

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

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

2010-11-16T08:48:00.000-08:00

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

DOSH-Elevator Unit Meeting Notice

2010-10-23T12:06:00.000-07:00

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

NCEIG Lunch Includes Code Session

2010-09-09T20:59:00.000-07:00

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

Symposium on the Use of Elevators During Emergencies

2010-09-07T13:23:00.000-07:00

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

Just though I would pass this information on to those that may have some interest in building evacuation issues. As you all probably know the industry is working hard to come up with code changes to elevator and building codes to assist both firefighters and those with disabilities safely evacuate high rise buildings.

http://events.asme.org/elevatorsymposium10/home.cfm

Regards
Bill Mitchell

Opening Blog - Welcome

2010-08-29T18:06:00.000-07:00

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

Welcome to the new NCEIG blog space!

2010-08-23T23:53:00.000-07:00

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