EMPLOYEE SAFETY
A question was asked during the
luncheon meeting on January 9, 2013 and it occurs to me that I may be the last
person with the ability to provide an answer; I have been told that following
my tenure as Principal Engineer of the Elevator Unit of Cal-OSHA, two Cal-OSHA
Seniors consecutively were assigned as the Principal. One of them, again, as I have been told,
purged all the old records which existed prior to the advent of Cal-OSHA.
The question: Paraphrased:
How come California doesn't permit the installation of Drop-keys, hidden
chains, or any other means of gaining access to hoistways if an elevator stalls
away from a landing and a rescue must be initiated?
Frequently this is done by other
than adequately trained elevator mechanics, much to their frustration. It also causes elevator mechanics, trained in
other than California, similar frustration.
To understand the answer one must
keep in mind that the first ASME/ANSI, or whatever name it went by at the time,
A 17.1 Elevator, etc. “code” was made available was in 1921. The word code is in quotes as we know it is
not a national code nor is it even a code.
Until some AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) legally adopts it, and
makes it the code that that jurisdiction intends to enforce. However, that AHJ always retains the ability
to modify A17.1 to suit their needs.
Then it becomes a code – but, only for that jurisdiction. I think of A17.1 as a standard rather than a
code, a standard written in what the A 17 Committee suggests as code language.
Keeping the above in mind, let us
now go back to the year 1914. In 1914
the California Industrial Accident Commission had its origin, and within it was
the Industrial Accident Prevention Bureau, (IAPB). The IAPB had the responsibility of
supervising places of employment to insure employee safety. In San Francisco there were many, many big
buildings containing elevators. Recall
some of the pictures you've seen relating to the 1905 earthquake. At that time most high speed high rise
elevators were hydraulic elevators.
An Otis publication in 1900
indicated that the elevator industry was of the opinion that the future of high
speed, high rise elevator cars would be suspended by ropes (steel cables) but
the machine would be hydraulic. Picture
if you can the cylinder containing the plunger lying on and securely fastened
to the basement floor of a building. As
the plunger moves out of the cylinder the car will move up in the
hoistway. The ropes (steel cables) are
connected to the car with a very sophisticated roping arrangement passing over
multiple pulleys which controlled elevator car acceleration and speed. Such
machines always had a bit of leakage and needed ongoing maintenance. There were many cases of elevator cars moving
away from the landing to one degree or another.
There were cases of employees falling into cars and even down the
shaft. In addition to what took place
with the elevator cars, think about maintaining the basement arrangement of the
multitude of moving ropes and turning pulleys.
And further complicating the system, each elevator had to be suspended
with 3 or more ropes. There were certain
to have been many injuries. In the Flood
Building in San Francisco there were at least 10 elevators all with such a
system in the basement.
All the above problems with
elevators were well known in 1914 when the Industrial Accident Commission had
it origin; in fact elevator problems may have been a contributing factor to
hold the meeting. At that time the IAPB
had the authority to:
·
Investigate work places and the work process
itself for safety;
·
Investigate industrial injuries, especially
disabling or fatal ones;
·
Enforce all laws and lawful orders requiring
work and work places to be safe;
·
Prepare standards of industrial safety (Safety
Orders), which if approved by the
Industrial Safety Board would have the effect of law;
·
Establish special orders, or rules and
regulations to cover a specific individual place of employment and process of
work.
It was during the meetings held
in 1914, 15, and 16, that the original California Elevator Safety Orders were
written. Of course it took some time for
the Industrial Safety Board (ISB) to approve the Safety Orders, to arrange
suitable funding, and to create the agency that would enforce the orders.
However, by 1920 all was ready to commence enforcement of the Elevator Safety
Orders. I no longer remember the name of
the first chief (now principal); I do recall the last name of the first
Certified Insurance Company Inspector.
His name was Moon. I recall the
name as his son Roy Moon was working as a State Elevator Inspector when I
became such. The Insurance Company
Elevator Inspector program apparently was developed at the same time as the
Elevator Safety Orders were. The
certification process came along later and appeared in the Elevator Safety
Orders in 1951. However for many years the
insurance inspectors did the bulk of the inspection work. After 1951 all insurance company elevator
inspectors had to be tested and “certified as competent” if the insurance
company wanted their inspectors report of inspection to be acceptable by the
elevator inspection agency for permit purposes.
Also, those first safety orders
did establish retro-activity; from the very beginning. Every elevator in all places of employment
had to comply with all the retro-active orders.
Of interest is the fact that the first state employed Elevator
Inspectors were issued side arms to assist
them in enforcing compliance. In my
research of the history of the unit I found no mention that any State Elevator
Inspector had to make use of his side arm to carry out his duties.
It was the decision of the IAPB,
and the ISB that the Elevator Safety Orders would prohibit any means of opening
the hoistway doors from the landing side.
That for safety in places of employment,
provisions made to permit the hoistway doors to be opened from the
landing side if the car was away from the landing could lead to a very dangerous
condition. Therefore - No
exceptions. During my research, I found
no other jurisdiction taking such a position.
Aside: As representatives from the Elevator Industry
were present during the meetings in 1914, 15 and 16, when the Elevator Safety
Orders were under consideration, I can't help but wonder if the position
California was taking didn't stimulate some action on the industry's part to
come out with their first “Elevator Code” in 1921.
That is the response to the
question asked during the January 9th 2013 meeting. It is going to take another BLOG or so to
clarify how, “from applicable to places of employment” grew to what it was
during my tenure as Principal.
Dee A. Swerrie
