ELA White Paper 2013

7/17/2019 ELA White Paper 2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ela-white-paper-2013 1/42

ELA Publication – April 2013



ELA SNEL white paper April 20132

DISCLAIMER: this document is based on Information received from

national associations, members of the European Lift Association,

CEN, the European Commission and other sources.

ELA declines any and all liability both for the content and for any

measure taken or not taken on the basis of the present study. This

study is for general informational purposes only.



ELA SNEL white paper April 2013 3

IntroductionLifts, escalators and moving walks are used more than1 billion times a day in the European Union. It is the most usedvehicle for travelling, and the safest by far. The communityof the travelling public appreciates the mobility and accessthat lifts, escalators and moving walks provide to all groupsin the community. They also expect that their journeys aremade as safe as possible, but this goes without saying andthe ride comfort is so high today with the new smooth rideexperience and perfect levelling accuracy that the user doesnot even realize or perceive that he/she is entering or leaving alift. Conversations continue, documents or business cards areexchanged, introductions made and lots of laughter heard ontravelling lifts.

The lift brings us together. It is one of the few meeting points intoday’s vertical cities. That is where vertical neighbours get toknow each other, that is where couples meet, that is where lifegoes by, uninterrupted.

More than five million lifts are in use today in Europe, tothe satisfaction of the immense majority of users. But noteverything is perfect. In many countries, more than half theexisting lifts are 25 years old or even older. Few of them have

been modernized to meet current safety and performancerequirements. Accidents, even fatal accidents still happenevery year. The lift industry is aiming at making the lift rideabsolutely safe. The lift may not fall “sometimes”. It may neverfail. Full stop. The user gives his/her own life to the lift anddoes not expect to encounter any problems. And so it shouldbe. Contrary to most other transport means, lifts are usedmostly by persons who are not the owner or the “driver” ofthe vehicle.

Ageing lifts can be made more energy-effective, safer, morereliable and comfortable through regular maintenance andthrough improvements.

This document, produced in the spring of 2013 is the firstdocument that ELA publishes since the launch of the Safety ofExisting Lifts campaign, some 11 years ago. It is a milestonein the long process that, through best practices exemplifiedfurther in this document, will produce a harmonized set ofnational legislation for the existing lifts that do not carry the CEmarking, in other words lifts that were not installed in the eraof the European Lifts Directive 95/16/EC, but date from beforethe turn of the century, from 1997 and before.

The fact that some lifts installed in the late 1800’s are stillfunctioning is a reminder of the incredible sturdiness andsafety of lifts. On average, a lift lasts six times longer than any

car on the road, to the full satisfaction of its users.




There is a need for new technical and social solutions tofacilitate everyday life and to create an inclusive society.These solutions will impact all residents of urban societiesand people in their work environments, be they young or old,healthy or with restricted mobility.

Homeowners and builders are in a key position to provide thenecessary infrastructure.

Vertical lift equipment and related services are an integral

part of the accessibility chain of buildings and of society asa whole.

1. Purpose of this White Paper w

This paper provides useful input to improve this “MobilityChain” , with a particular attention given to the verticallift equipment which is present everywhere in the builtenvironment as illustrated below:




w Today available codes of good practice and national laws,based on the transposition of existing European Directivesand Recommendations can help achieve this higherimplementation level. Allow us to list up the most importantwhich are:

• EN 81-80: “Rules for the improvement of safety ofexisting passenger and goods passenger lifts” orso called “SNEL” (see also under point 1.1.2 andfollowing);

• European Recommendation 95/216/EC: The “10”Recommendations (see also under point 3);

• Use of work equipment Directive (UWED, 89/655/ EC amended by 95/63/EEG and 2001/45/EC);

• Product liability Directive (85/374/EC of 25th of July 1985);

• Product safety Directive for the consumers(2001/95/EC of 3rd of December 2001);

• Directive 89/391/EC of 12th of June 1989 onthe introduction of measures to encourageimprovements in the safety and health of workers atwork.

w This White paper can be used as a guideline for:

• National authorities to determine their ownprogramme of implementation in a step by stepprocess via a filtering method in a reasonableand practicable way based on the level of risk(e.g. extreme, high, medium, low) and social andeconomic considerations;

• Owners to follow their responsibilities according toexisting regulations (e.g. Use of Work EquipmentDirective-UWED) ;

• Owners to upgrade the existing lifts on a voluntarybasis if no particular national regulations exist;

• Maintenance companies and/or inspection bodiesto inform the owners on the safety level of theirinstallations;

• National authorities, owners and maintenancecompanies and/or inspection bodies to get inspiredby initiatives already undertaken by other leadingmember states as illustrated in this paper.

• The political world (Members of the EuropeanParliament or national MPs or other public officers

• The European Commission and other Europeanbodies

• Associations or others.




In 2003, the European Committee of Standardization (CEN)has added to its well-known European Standard for newlifts, EN 81 part 1 and 2, the key standard for the safety ofexisting lifts, EN 81-80: 2003. This standard was the resultof several years work by committed safety experts from thelift industry, government authorities, third party inspectionbodies, consumers’ organizations and insurance companies.Since then, the main lift norm EN 81-1/2 is being replaced bythe new norm EN 81-20/50, but the on-going process keeps itsexisting lifts references to EN 81-80.

EN 81-80:2003, Safety rules for the construction and installationof lifts – Existing lifts – Part 80: Rules for the improvementof safety of existing passenger and goods passenger lifts,categorizes various hazards and hazardous situations, each ofwhich has been analysed by a risk assessment. It then providesa list of corrective actions to improve safety progressively.

The lift should be audited against a checklist of more than 70items (74 in Western Europe but several more in Central &Eastern European member states).

2. BackgroundThe identification of the hazardous situation can be carried outin the course of any periodical survey or special examinationon a given installation, but only technically competent andsufficiently trained persons should be allowed to carryout these examinations. This can be subjected to nationalregulations.

Once the weak points of the installation have been identifiedthrough this pro-active assessment or safety audit, improvementscan be made (if necessary) by a stepwise upgrading which can

naturally be combined with any modernization being carriedout. In addition, preventive maintenancce and repairs are anecessary ongoing process.

T EC H NO LO G Y, R&

D

1920 1979 1985 1998 2004

2003

2010 2020

COUNTRY-SPECIFIC DIFFERENCESIN LEVEL OF SAFETY

EN81-1

EN81-1/2

EN81 series

EN81 seriesof standards

EN 81-80

The Deltashall bedeterminedby theNationalauthorities

EN81 series

STEP BY STEP APPROACH OF SAFETY FOR LIFTS IN EUROPE




SNEL (Safety Norm for Existing lifts) is the known abbreviationfor the specialists of the lift industry in Europe, when they referto EN 81-80. It is an important safety instrument that showsits long-term impact in many countries in Europe. SNEL andits various applications throughout the continent and abroad(Hong Kong, Australia and others) also serve as a benchmarkand an example to other countries inside and outside ofEurope.

SNEL has to be applied as a technical guide package, to

promote the progressive (when?) and selective (what?)maintaining and/or improvement of the safety of existing lifts.Through these actions, there is a very clear increase in theEuropean lift safety and accessibility for lift users, lift workersand third party inspectors.

Member-states decision makers, lift owners, lift industryand third party inspection bodies have a vital interest inunderstanding the implications of SNEL. They must link upwith closely related EU and National existing regulations.

The core message is that SNEL needs to be applied in a pro-active way. This allows the application of the well-known

prevention principle, of taking the necessary and sufficientmeasures to ensure a safe situation.

This "SNEL" approach, once integrated and well applied,makes the lifts safer for all of us.

The creation, at member-state level, of a specific national lawor decree, referring to or based upon this EN 81-80 standard,can give a more mandatory character to it, as this is already thecase in Belgium, France, Spain, Austria, Germany and othercountries (see chapter 7 and following).







When the European Commission (EC) produced the LiftsDirective 95/216/EC, all stakeholders knew that the documentwas only destined to regulate the installation of new lifts, butthe very large stock of lifts that equipped the existing buildingsthroughout Europe remained under the sole responsibilityof national governments. Still, the EC, after consultationof the various stakeholders, including EEA and EFLA at thetime, decided to add a short one page “Recommendation”95/216/ EC with the 10 recommendations to make existing liftssafer, whatever their age. It is only a Recommendation, sincethe European Commission only sees to the further integrationof Europe and not to the existing set of national regulationsthat remain the responsibility of the member states.

This has been the basis for the lift industry experts, when theyset to the huge task of identifying risks that lifts could pose. TheCommittee of experts provided a carefully detailed list of 74risks, both to users and to workers. The “10 recommendations”document was the basis for their work on the new norm, theSafety Norm for Existing Lifts EN 81-80:2003 (SNEL).

The list of the 10 recommendations from 1995 is as follows:

3. European Recommendation

95/216/EC (reference to)




Europe is the first continent and by far for the number oflifts installed. The installed basis (more than 5 million lifts)represents some 50 % of the number of lifts installed in theworld. This is changing rapidly with the coming of age ofAsia, particularly China, where more than 400 000 lifts wereinstalled in 2011, while Europe only installed some 110 000units in the same period and North America some 20 000units.

2011

COUNTRY EMPLOYEES EXISTING LIFTS TOTAL POPULATION

Austria 2 100 88 280 8 221 000

Belgium 2 500 88 000 10 444 000

Bulgaria 2 500 84 000 6 982 000

Czech Republic 2 700 133 200 10 163 000

Denmark 960 31 500 5 556 000

Estonia 150 4 600 1 266 000

Finland 1 500 56 000 5 266 000

France 20 000 520 000 65 952 000

Germany 18 000 650 000 81 147 000

Greece 6 000 411 900 10 773 000

Hungary 950 37 300 9 939 000

Italy 25 000 915 000 61 482 000

Latvia 350 5 770 2 178 000

Lithuania 500 8 100 3 516 000

Luxemburg 340 9 700 514 862

The Netherlands 2 489 87 500 16 805 000Norway 1 100 37 700 4 723 000

Poland 5 000 87 488 38 384 000

Portugal 2 450 147 000 10 799 000

Romania 5 000 43 500 21 790 000

Slovakia 1 000 41 800 5 488 000

Slovenia 450 10 195 1 993 000

Spain 19 000 857 283 47 371 000

Sweden 2 800 109 575 9 119 000

Switzerland 3 588 198 000 7 996 000

Turkey 17 500 313 000 73 640 000United Kingdom 11 950 274 900 63 396 000

TOTAL 155 877 5 251 291 584 903 862

4. Statistics about

the European Lifts portfolio

The European lift industry

(including Turkey) maintainssome 5 250 000 lifts with a

total personnel of more than150 000 employees.

The average age of existing

lifts is above 25 years.

LIFTS / NUMBER OF INHABITANTS




Europe also has a large share of the new generation of MRL lifts(Machine Room Less) than any other continent, North Americaremaining very traditional for the types of lifts installed, exceptfor the high rise applications in city centres.

The fact that the lift stock is on average much bigger inEurope than in North America and much older than in Asia,statistically implies a higher risk of accidents for the Europeanlift users and workers. Fatal accidents of users and workersunfortunately happen every year, though in a limited number

(between 10 and 20). Serious accidents are numerous andthe number of incidents is very high, but impossible to defineprecisely, since most of these incidents and “near misses” in

MAIN CAUSES FOR USER ACCIDENTS 2011:

Stopping accuracy/bad levelling 53 %

Entrapment 16 %No protective devices on power operated doors 16 %Lack of car door 4 %

Locking problems 4 %Uncontrolled movement of car 4 %

No safety gear or overspeed governor on electric lifts 3 %

MAIN CAUSES FOR WORKER ACCIDENTS 2011:

Unsafe access to machine room 23 %

Inadequate means of handling equipment 18 %Insufficient protection against electric shock 11 %Unsafe pit access 10 %

No protection on different levels in machine room 7 %Slippery floor in machine room 4 %

Sharp edges/objects 17 %Slips, trips and falls 7 %Misuse of tools 3 %

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2008

Worker

accidents

User

accidents

2009 2010 2011

the use of lifts are not reported by the victims. Only statisticsfor workers are fully reliable, since these must be reported forHealth & Safety reasons, in order to improve equipment andpractices.

Out of experience, the Statistical Committee of ELA, whichworks closely with the national lift associations, applies apyramid of accidents & incidents, for workers and for users.

The main causes for accidents are linked each year to the

SNEL risks in the ELA statistics and communicated to allmember associations, in order to improve specifically on themain causes and eradicate them.




5. Other aspects

when implementing SNELThe implementation of EN 81-80 per country, based on the 74defined risks, will vary in content and scheduling, to allow forany local differences in the assessment of those risks.

The definition of risks levels, categorized as extreme, high,medium or low, will depend on previous country history of liftregulation and applied standards, accident statistics, specificproduct knowledge and social expectations.

In SNEL, annex A, the described methodology of the “National

Filtering Method” provides a tool for easily and successfullydefining the “when” and “what” status of each predefinedSNEL risk.

Today, this filtering process, which has been appliedsuccessfully in several European countries, among themBelgium, France, Spain or Austria, is on-going in other EUmember-states…

Using the filter as recommended by the experts who wrote thenorm, will bring a de facto safety harmonization of the existinglifts. It will be a great leap forward for European integration.

5.1 ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Energy efficiency is required from all equipment of thebuilding in today’s society. Energy has become paramount inthe fight against global warming and the reduction of CO2emissions. Since the building stock is responsible for roughlyhalf the emissions of CO2 in Europe, through heating anddirect emissions, but also through indirect emissions, whenproducing electricity used by the building equipment, from

heating and cooling to running lifts and escalators.Lifts don’t consume a lot of energy, since electrical lifts andsome models of hydraulic lifts function with a counterweightthat strongly reduces the need for electricity in running thelift up and down in its shaft. ELA has participated to thedevelopment of the E4 Report (Energy Efficient Elevators &Escalators), with the support of the European Commission(Intelligent energy unit), and the measurements made on tensof lifts throughout Europe clearly indicate that despite of its lowconsumption, the lift can still see its electricity consumptiondrastically reduced, mainly by replacing existing incandescentlighting with new types of lamps and by installing controllersthat will provide different sleep modes for the lift and reduce

its consumption when the lift is in standby...which is most ofthe time.

The E4 group has calculated that the overall energy efficiencycould reduce the electricity demand by 4 Terawatts, if allexisting lifts in Europe were improved for energy efficiency.

Lateral thinking makes it that the European Commission andnational deciders are to be convinced by the fact that themodernisation of the lift stock can mean several benefits atthe same time: SAFETY of users through the application ofSNEL, but also ENERGY EFFICIENCY improvements throughthe application of the E4 recommendations and improved

ACCESSIBILITY to the disabled, whether temporary orpermanent, as well as senior citizens, who can remain homelonger and not be put into institutions where they don’t feel athome and which represent high costs for society. ImprovingSafety through SNEL is a Win Win objective that can also havean impact on energy efficiency and accessibility for all.




5.2 ACCESSIBILITY (access to the building)

There is a growing trend in our population: people live longer.The disabled require access and both groups, senior citizensand people with disabilities want safety without the need forsupervision.

5.3 LIABILITY ISSUES - RIGHTS ANDOBLIGATIONS OF THE DIFFERENT ACTORS

5.3.1 The different actors

The degree of liability depends on national legislation andthe specific facts of each case. However, one should takeinto account that many parties (lift company, maintenance

company, lift owner, third party, government, etc.) arepotentially involved when it comes to an accident resultingfrom one of the SNEL identified risks and caused by insufficientsafety measurements applied to lifts (often based on SNEL).

Intensive dialogue with lawyers and/or law firms is animportant first action for a smooth application of the nationallegislation.

A starting point is to verify how for example the EuropeanDirectives and Recommendation mentioned hereunder aretoday transposed into national law.

The most relevant ones are:

• The “10” Recommendations (95/216/EC);

• Use of work equipment Directive (UWED, 89/655/ EC, 95/63/EC and 2001/45/EC);

• Product liability Directive (85/374/EC of 25th of July 1985);

• Product safety Directive for the consumers (2001/95/EC of 3rd of December 2001);

• Directive 89/391/EC of 12 June 1989 on the intro-duction of measures to encourage improvements inthe safety and health of workers at work.

Furthermore, it is important to know how the courts deal withexisting national and European legislation, the state of theart safety philosophy, jurisprudence and applicable existingnational and new European standards.

These objectives can be worked out by making an inventoryof potential “Frequently Asked Questions” . To illustrate this, itshould be clear which parties are involved when an accidentoccurs. Let us suppose, for example, that a risk analysishas been done as scheduled by the law, but the requiredmodernization work has not been done accordingly.

The question is then: who is responsible in the case of anaccident with injury, or in worst case if death occurs as aresult?

0

5

10

15

20

2000 2006 2020 2030 2040

8%

15%

P e r c e n t a g e

o f t h e

p o p u l a t i o n

SENIORS +75

People do not want to leave their homes where they have been

living for many years despite age and mobility problems.EN 81-80 “SNEL” combined with CEN/TS EN 81-82 “Rules forthe improvement of the accessibility of existing lifts for personsincluding persons with disability” can help to achieve this.

Ê



ELA SNEL white paper April 201314 ELA SNEL white paper April 201314

5. Other aspects

when implementing SNELWho are the major involved parties in case of accident:

• Victim: lift user, lift technician or inspector

• Lift company: installation, maintenance, repair,modernization

• Administrator: owner or his/her representative

• Third party: inspection body, insurance company

• Government: competent authorities

5.3.2 What if SNEL is not applied?

If SNEL has not been applied well, we should be aware that inthe case of lift accidents, court decisions will rely on criteriaand facts. The court will relate the application of the state-of-the-art technology which in the case of existing lifts meansSNEL.

SNEL is today the “state-of-the-art” in safety upgrading, theratified standard in Europe, made official by CEN.

Lift owners, lift industry and third party inspection bodies havea vital interest in mastering all implications of SNEL, includinglinks with closely related EU and national existing regulations.

One can fear that if nothing is being done on an ageing liftstock, fatalities and serious accidents suddenly start growingexponentially, with the conjunction of obsolescence ofequipment and the ageing of the population.

Ê




Once SNEL has been implemented as local legislation, manyquestions from all kind of sources will come up.

The main objective of having a smooth application of the newlaw is to have the law interpreted consistently by all parties.Therefore, a continued dialogue between all parties is requiredin order to re-adjust the practical work if necessary.

To have an overview of possible obstructions, we will sum upa list of elements to be taken into account when the law startsto be applied:

a) Lift companies need to plan the impact onavailable resources and time schedules within theirorganization. This exercise is part of the preparationwork as well;

b) Safety components capabilities and safety levels,which are the result of the practical applicationof SNEL, are to be defined, after consultation withinspection bodies and involved civil servants;

c) Inspection bodies need to be informed by the

industry about the practical application of themodernization and vice versa (which kind of safetycomponents and safety levels?);

d) The same applies for the government and civilservants;

e) All possible scenarios regarding liability, legal and judicial aspects (see also point 4) are to be listed.(This exercise is part of the preparation work aswell). This includes the analysis of the possibleconsequences if the law is ignored;

f) Exceptional cases, such as very old lifts, need to be

considered case by case, as huge modernizationcosts can be out of proportion in comparison withthe value of a lift.

“Reasonably practicable” is defined as follows: “In decidingwhat is reasonably practicable, the seriousness of the risk ofinjury should be weighed against the difficulty and cost ofremoving or reducing that risk. In considering the cost, noallowance should be made for the size, nature or profitabilityof the business concerned. Where the difficulty and costsare high and a careful assessment of the risk shows it to becomparatively unimportant, action may not need to be taken.On the other hand where the risk is high, action should betaken at whatever cost” .

All parties should be aware that transposing SNEL intonational legislation is driven by “safety”, as the fundamentalreason to legislate is triggered by a standard that aims atimproving safety and accessibility of existing lifts! Still, itis to be noted that energy efficiency and accessibility areautomatically improved as a consequence.

5.3.3 Once SNEL has been integrated and well applied in your country: follow up




Since the publication in December 2003 of the standard EN81-80, defining the 74 risks to be tackled on existing lifts,the European Lift Association has made a large amount ofinformation available to its members, the industry and thepublic in general, in order to promote the improvement ofsafety on existing lifts. The most important document publishedbefore the present White Paper is the “SNEL Guideline”available on the ELA website (2004 - see here under).

6. Information about SNEL6.1 SCOPE OF INFORMATION

There are two types of information documents available at ELAand on its website, aimed at different stakeholders and theirlevel of knowledge of the issues at stake:

w

Technical application documents and guidelines onhow to progressively upgrade the existing stock of lifts inthe country. The most exhaustive document is the SNELGuidelines: a binder published by ELA in 2004 and launchedthat same year at a SNEL conference, organized in Brussels,with the participation of the whole of industry, notifiedbodies, disabled associations and top civil servants from thegovernments of many member states. The document, titled“Your guideline to SNEL: improving safety and accessibilityof existing lifts in Europe” is still available on the ELA“Members only” section of the ELA website..

RISK 6 : WELL ENCLOSURES WITH PERFORATE WALLS (relevant clause 5.5.1.1

in EN 81-80)

Objects, limbs or body parts are passed into the well, causing shearing and

crushing of limbs, or even death. Lifts installed in a large staircase, where the stairs run round the lift, need to have full enclosures and no possibility for

humans to put any part of the body inside the shaft.




w General brochures, illustrations and documents:

• Each of the main risks listed in SNEL has beenillustrated by the artist Zack in cartoons madeavailable to all, free of charge, showing the risk itselfand how it can happen on the one hand, and theimproved situation, once the risk has been dealtwith. See the example below: the last fatal accident

of this type took place in Paris at the end of 2011,with the decapitation of a young man who waslooking down over the railing.

• Next to these cartoons made available in high andlow definition to all members of the associationand their members’ members, ELA has produceda video presenting the safety situation of an ageinglift stock and the danger of seeing the number ofaccidents rapidly increasing for users and workersalike if nothing is done to upgrade the safety oflifts. The video is available in English, French,German, Italian, Dutch, Polish, Spanish, Turkish and

probably other languages. The Swedish associationHissforbundet has also produced a video illustratingsome of the main risks listed in SNEL. This video (inSwedish) can be bought at the Swedish association.

• The PowerPoint presentations made at the SNELsymposium (January 2004) and the SNEL Forum(June 2004) by industry experts, by a journaliston media relations and a lobbyist on governmentrelations and lobbying are available on the ELAwebsite (members only section). The website sectionon the SNEL Symposium also contains SNEL tools, aPilot checklist and a “Q & A” document.

•

The best way forward is working with “Best practices”and trying to repeat the successes reached by someassociations/member states, while avoiding thehurdles that appeared during the process in othermember states. Several detailed presentations areavailable on the ELA website, Members only “SNEL”section, describing the process and results obtainedin France, Spain, Belgium and Austria.

• The essential documents for each member statethat legislated are of course the national “Laws &application decrees”. Each law, decree, guideline orrecommendation issued by member states or regionsis available in the original language and in a (free)English translation on the ELA website (Membersonly section). It is a great help for legislators andlift associations that want to pass new legislationimproving the safety of existing lifts, to benchmark

the different legislation in place throughout Europe,thanks to the English translation of all laws, decreesand recommendations.

• Brochures were published by ELA and by severalcountries, to promote SNEL or accompany thepublication of legislation. They are available on theELA website too (members only section). They might

give ideas to others on the best communicationideas to be used. A new brochure has been madeavailable on the ELA website at the end of March2013. It is illustrated with new original drawings byZack.

6.2 WHAT SNEL IS - WHAT IT IS NOT

SNEL is:

w

Despite its non-harmonised status, it is to be considered asequally important as other existing EN-standards for lifts.

w Furthermore this standard is not about modernisation, butabout the progressive and selective improvement of thesafety and accessibility of existing lifts.

SNEL is not:

w This standard does not have an EU mandate related to aEuropean Directive (e.g. the Lift Directive 95/16/EC), since itconcerns existing installations only. Therefore this standard

has not been published as a harmonised EU Standard.w Furthermore this is a safety standard and is not to be con-sidered as a European modernisation standard for existinglifts!




Member states that have analyzed their existing legislationwith the “filter” that EN 81-80 provides, and have legislatedaccordingly, filling the voids in terms of safety of users andof workers, have selected different ways and timetables toapply the legislation. Most countries have adopted a timing inthree steps for safety upgrading over a period varying between12 and 18 years (France, Belgium), starting with the mostdangerous risks. Some other member states have chosen towork by year of installation, each year of application gettingthe lifts of a certain period in the past, starting with the oldestlifts and going back in time to the most recent lifts (Austria).Germany has had a system in place for many years, throughwhich the notified bodies make a recommendation (notcompulsory) to the lift owner for all lifts used for work (Use ofWork Equipment Directive 95.63 EC and 2001/45/EC). Evenif the safety upgrading is not compulsory, the liability for thelift owner in case of accident is a strong incentive to adapt thelift. Other countries have only produced a recommendationfor the most important risks (Norway), which is a step in theright direction.

7. Survey of existing regulations

based on SNEL

• Series of fatal accidents

• Request from national

authorities at AFNOR

• Political world

START

DRAFTING LAW, DECREE AND ARRESTS

PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

• Ministry

ANALYSING THE SITUATION

• Collecting accidents statisticsfor Users & Workers

• Identification of major risks toprevent

• Defining compensatorymeasures

• Setting up list of safetydevices

• Transversal Work Group underAFNOR authority

PROPOSAL TO NATIONAL AUTHORITIES

• Number and type of lifts• Type of building• Compensatory measures• Provisional cost by safety

measures• Prioritization of safety

measures• Lead-time and deadlines (3 periods)

• French Lift Federation (FAS)and the Ministry

The process was exemplary in France. Here is a summary of theprocess, as applied, after a series of fatal accidents triggered aresponse by the French government in 2003.

7.1 IMPLEMENTING IN FRANCE




Background

After a much publicized series of accidents, involving childrenamong other victims in 2002, the French government decided tolegislate urgently. The French federation and AFNOR providedstatistics and indications on the worst risks, recommendingto Minister Gilles de Robien (Housing) to “filter” the existinglegislation and apply EN 81-80 for the risks which were not yetcovered by the French legislation. Car doors were for examplealready compulsory since the early 1980’s and did not needlegislating. Nevertheless, the French lift stock was then oneof the oldest in Europe, since France had had much lessreconstruction than Germany after the last world war. Moreimportantly, France made a huge effort at building apartmentblocks and social housing in the 1960’s when the repatriationof the French population from Algeria took place. The Frencheconomy had also developed much earlier than the economyof countries such as Spain for example, or Poland since itbecame a Member State in the European Union.

Content & implementation

The new SAE (Sécurité des Ascenseurs Existants) legislationprepared and voted in a record time despite some oppositionfrom building owners, covers 44 SNEL risks, scheduling theapplication of the law and its application decrees in threephases of 5 – 10 – 15 years: the high risks had to be coveredby 2010 (after prolongation), the medium risks by 2013(prolongation possible) and the low risks before 2018.

The French law was published on July 3, 2003 (Law n° 2003-590 published on July 2nd 2003). A general application decree(2004-964) was published on September 9th, 2004 and threeorders on November 18th, 2004. A new law was subsequentlypublished, extending the total lead time from 15 to 18 years;so 2008 became 2010 (Decree n° 2008-291), but there is atthe time of publication of this White Paper no postponementannounced for the 2013 due date or for 2018, thoughdiscussions are taking place for 2013. 2013 was maintained assuch and 2018 is still under discussion.

The application of legislation in France has been exemplary.What has happened since 2005?

w

1) The first 5 year-period was the most crucial in termsof recruiting and training new mechanics for the industry,answering the multiple calls for tender, and organizingthe work. There were between 330 000 and 407 000 liftsconcerned by this first phase (suppression of the high risksas defined in SNEL), on a total of 528 000 lifts in France.Today the safety of 90 % of these lifts has been upgraded forthe high risks.

At the end of the first period, since many owners were latein ordering their work to be done and the rush in the lastfew months, the French government was obliged to lengthenthe delay by one year, until December 31st, 2010 to make itpossible for all owners to comply with legislation.

w 2) The second 5-year period covered some 290 000 to 339000 lifts for the medium risks enclosed in the SAE legislation.It ends on July 3, 2013, except if the government postponesthe closing date by 6 months to another year. The Frenchlift federation has defended the idea of not extending thedeadline because it maintains safety risks while penalizing

the owners who have done the work early or within duetime. For the French lift sector, it is possible to keep the Julydate for all lift owners to have at least passed the order forthe second phase of safety upgrading on their lift by the duedate. There remain some 120 000 lifts on which the work tobe done in the second phase still needs to be done.

At the beginning of February 2013, 60 % of lifts concernedhad been upgraded already. The modernisation of theremaining 40 % will last well into 2014, even if all ordersare passed by July 3, 2013

Ê




France is the best example of a well thought-out process,from the legislative phase, identifying the risks requirementon the French lift stock, defining the periods and method ofapplication, informing all and managing the whole process,to reach very high levels of application on all types of lifts,in public buildings, buildings accessible to the public, or allresidential applications. When a postponement of the due datewas considered necessary, it was “given” in the last monthbefore the due date, to avoid the loss of momentum. So doing,

France has managed to upgrade its lift stock on a record timefor the number of units involved.

For the industry it was certainly not easy to absorb the hugesurge in work from the multiple calls for tender that needed tobe answered by all companies, large and small, to the trainingof new mechanics on the most difficult of jobs: the adaptationof lifts of all ages and technologies.

Costs for the whole programme were first estimated at 4billion . The latest estimates bring the total investment at9 billion . This high number does not mean that the actualsafety upgrading of the French lift stock has cost 9 billion. It isestimated at a little more than 4 billion . Need to be taken into

w 3) The third and last 5-year period ends on July 3rd, 2018.It relates to minor risks, which are less important. Themost important risk to be dealt with for that last period isthe Uncontrolled Movement in up direction (UCM). Thislast requirement is not costly if a frequency convertor hasbeen installed during the second phase (2013), for whichthe levelling accuracy (frequency convertor) was the mostimportant modification to be brought to the lift. Nevertheless,the number of lifts concerned in this third phase remainsimportant. Only 20% of lifts to be modernised were fullyupgraded during the first or the two first phases. Some 80%of the lifts concerned remain to be done. The volume ofmodernisation work should therefore remain at a steadypace until 2018.

FRENCH USERS ACCIDENTS REDUCTION SINCE APPLICATION OF SNEL(SAE legislation)


based on SNEL

w Serious and fatal accidents were reduceddrastically in 10 years

w

Most serious & fatal accidents have a

cause covered by the 17 measures

w Accidents occurred where the measures

were not yet applied

w Since 2000, 85% of these accidents couldhave been prevented by the SNEL law

Appraisal of the programme

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

201220112010200920082007200620052004200320022001

Ê




The most important result of the safety upgrading campaignled in France for the last 7 years is that fatal and seriousaccidents have been significantly reduced, both for users andfor mechanics. The only fatal accidents that unfortunatelyhappened in France during the period, took place on units thathad not yet been modernised. Incidents have also been reducedbut it is very difficult to assess the incidents happening on lifts,since few people complain officially, and the lift industry canonly estimate the number of incidents by applying percentages

to the reported serious and fatal accidents.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Others

Impacted

by SNEL

201220112010200920082007200620552004

SEVERE AND FATAL WORKER ACCIDENTS ON EXISTING LIFTS IN FRANCE(accidents on the road to the work place not included)

account: the inflation since 2003 (more or less 10 years) andthe fact that many owners decided to do more on their lift andincrease the value of their building, by deciding for exampleto have new panel decoration of the car, or to replace theenclosure of the well with elegant wrought-iron protections,which are very costly transformations.

On the total of 9,4 billion that the total programme willprobably cost, 5,7 billion have been completed in February

2013. The adaptation of the lift to obtain a perfect levellingaccuracy (lift adaptation to be done by 2013 for lifts installedbefore 1982, and 2018 for others) alone (the most costlyrequirement) reaches some 1,5 to 2,5 billion .

The new lifts market in France represents adding some 10 000to 12 000 new lifts every year. It is less than 1/5th of the unitsinvolved in the SNEL programme each year over the last 7years. For the French lift industry, it has meant creating andkeeping high skilled jobs during the difficult years that theconstruction sector has gone through. After 2018, the marketshould gradually “land” back to a much less important“modernisation” activity, next to the new lift market.




In Belgium, the introduction of legislation was triggered by aseries of dramatic fatal accidents in 2001 and 2002, thoughthe industry and all other stakeholders had begun preparingthe content of a potential decree earlier on.

A Royal Decree published in the Belgian Official Journal onMarch 9th, 2003 was the first piece of legislation using EN81-80 (SNEL) in Europe. It was fought from the very beginningby a residential owners’ association, which considered thatresidential lifts were basically safe, and that no upgrading wasneeded. It was modified twice, the last modification dating

from December 2012, the first time to lengthen the applicationperiod of legislation, at the request of a residential owners’association and the second time, to modify the content ofeach step of the upgrading to be done and to prolong theapplication period for the “historical residential lifts”, whilethe large majority of lifts kept the original timetable. The totalnumber of 74 risks listed in SNEL is covered by the Belgianlegislation. In the latest revised version of the Royal Decree,all risks must be tackled at once, in function of the date ofinstallation (and not in 3 five-year periods as was the case inthe first version of the text). It was rapidly perceived that thephases of the original three-phase plan, fractioning the costsin 3 steps, were not independent from each other. Solutions


based on SNEL

for a later phase were required to satisfy the needs of a formerphase. In order to avoid temporary solutions to be installedfor a limited period, it is better to realize all works at once.The new Royal Decree imposes full modernization of liftsdepending on their age, once and for all. Owners get moretime as acceptable alternative solutions need to be developed.

w

Lifts installed after April 1st, 1984 must be upgraded byDecember 31th, 2014.

w Lifts installed after January 1st, 1958 must be upgraded by

December 31th, 2016w All other lifts must be upgraded by December 31th, 2022.

The last revision seems to be the right one and all stakeholders– owners included – have accepted the new plan. The newRoyal Decree imposes a timetable for safety upgrading of alllifts in Belgium, for private residential or professional use.

The oldest lifts (installed before 1954) which have a historicalor patrimonial value will have to be modernized by the endof 2022. AGORIA, the Belgian association assesses the totalnumber of existing lifts in Belgium at about 85 000 units.

7.2 IMPLEMENTING IN BELGIUM





The Belgian lift association AGORIA is satisfied, despite thenumber of postponements of legislation, since all stakeholdersnow agree on the new text scheme. It is a firm decision,clarifying the rules for maintenance and safety upgrading.The first approach had been a three-phase plan approach,fractioning the costs in 3 steps, which could have increasedthe total cost of the upgrading. The new Royal Decree imposesthe full modernisation of lifts depending on their age, onceand for all.

Date of putting into service Upgrading at the latest by

After April 1st, 1984 December 31st, 2014

After January 1st, 1958 December 31st, 2016

All lifts older than 1958 December 31st, 2022

The Belgian lift association AGORIA takes the example ofFrance, which has seen the number of its serious accidentsdivided by 3 since the application of the French SNELlegislation (SAE law). In Belgium there were 2 fatal accidentson lifts in 2012, on lifts which were not yet upgraded forsafety. The association will analyze its accident figures forboth users and lift mechanics in the coming years to see if thetrend corresponds to the progress in the application of SNELin Belgium.

The safety upgrading will also improve the ride comfort andlevelling accuracy and it is the right time to review the energyconsumption of the lift, starting with the most obvious sourcesof energy saving: lighting. No more permanent lightingof the car, even when it sits idle during the night, LED andeconomical bulbs everywhere, no permanent lighting of thewell, etc... A new generation of controllers provide lifts moreand more with different sleep modes for the car, adapting the

readiness of the car and its energy consumption to the periodof the day and the intensity of the lift use.

Another important point that The Belgian lift associationstresses to the public: the cost of the SNEL upgrading is notas high as many owners fear. Only in the case of very oldresidential lifts, of architectural value, is a modernisationcostlier. Another element: more than half the Belgian liftowners have upgraded the safety of their lift in the last fewyears, anticipating the legislation. A last point stressed by theBelgian association: a modernised lift increases the value ofthe building where it is installed, and the maintenance costswill be lower in the future. The Belgian SNEL saga ends witha good decision and a clear Royal Decree. The great majorityof public buildings and of private buildings accessible to thepublic have already been upgraded.




Germany was the first European member state to adopt aregulation which allows the application of SNEL, even beforethe completion of the new norm EN 81-80. A regulation(Betriebssicherheitsverordnung - BetrSichV) was created onSeptember 27, 2002 and published on October 3, 2002.It covers lifts which are work equipment (chapter 2) andequipment “subject to supervision”, which necessitates specialinspection (pressure vessels or lifts for example) (chapter 3). Theregulation covers all lifts which are somehow commerciallyused, e.g. as work equipment, in office, industrial and publicbuildings but also in residential buildings where apartments arerented. Only few lifts which are in pure private use don’t fallunder this regulation. They are covered by regional buildingregulations of the federal states, the ‘Bundesländer’. However,5 out of 16 of the federal states, specifically mention that allobligations applying for commercially used lifts, also apply toresidential units, and are subject to a third party supervision.In the remaining states the owner is responsible for the safeoperation of the lift. In practice most of these ‘private’ lifts aretreated as being covered by the Betriebssicherheitsverordnung.

The regulation imposed an assessment of the hazards presenton each lift by the owner for all lifts (it is automatic for newlifts), in case of lifts being work equipment immediately

after getting in force of the regulation and for lifts not beingconsidered as work equipment by December 31, 2007 at thelatest. Most owners assigned this task to inspection bodieswhich are also carrying out periodical inspections requiredby the regulation. Inspection bodies could use the list of EN81-80 or their own enlarged or reduced list. Most inspectorsswitched to EN 81-80 for their assessment. The target of the newregulation was the simplification of existing safety legislationin Germany, covered by several ordinances, now combinedin one. Most importantly, its aim was also to strengthen theowner’s responsibility. At the same time this new regulationalso included the national transposition of the Use of WorkEquipment Directive (89/655/EEC, amended by 95/63/EC and

2001/45/EC).

For lifts which are considered as work equipment (e.g. lifts infactories or office buildings) the owner has the obligation toupgrade the safety to a minimum which is evaluated by anassessment of existing hazards. If the lift is not used as workequipment (e.g. in apartment buildings), the owner is alsoobliged to do an assessment of hazards. However he may alsochoose organisational measures instead of technical measuresas long as these measures are able to achieve a sufficient safetylevel.

The key to the application of EN 81-80 in Germany is that theindustry association VDMA has reached an agreement withthe German inspection bodies, that the hazards and safetyassessments are based on EN 81-80, which at the time wasonly a prEN (preparatory text), using the appropriate elements.

The safety level of the national German lift standard TRA 200(Technische Regeln für Aufzüge) has been already pretty highcompared with today’s state of the art. Due to this reason ,forlifts which have been installed before the application of the LiftsDirective in 1999, only 30 SNEL risks out of 74 may be found.Furthermore some of these remaining risks have already beencovered partly by TRA 200. After re-assessment by national

filtering, only 10 high risks remain (e.g. separation of adjacentlifts in the pit or over the full height, stopping device in the pitor remote alarm system). Missing car doors may only be foundon some goods passenger lifts in restricted areas. All other liftshave been retrofitted with car doors already in the 70’s.

In 1999 when the Lifts Directive got in force approx. 500 000passenger and goods passenger lifts had been in operation inGermany. For the majority of these lifts (more than 80 %) theSNEL risk assessment has been done and for most of them,measures for upgrading of safety have been carried out. Thereare no statistics on these modernisations available. Howeverindustry representatives assume that there might be still less

than 40 % of the ‘old lifts’ where some of the high risks have notyet been upgraded. Therefore industry is continuing to informlift owners on remaining risks and appropriate modernisation.


based on SNEL

7.3 IMPLEMENTING IN GERMANY




Since 2002, a catalogue for the modernisation and refurbishingof existing lifts was established by the DAfA (German liftcommittee) and published by the German ministry. It isthe “Umbaukatalog”, which describes additional safetymeasures which have to be carried out in combination withmodernisation and refurbishing actions. Today the requirementsare covered by TRBS 1121, a technical specification for theBetriebssicherheitsverordnung.

Let us also mention the German water protection legislationthat requires groundwater to be protected by secondary

containments and oil resistant coating, also for existinginstallations. This requirement is relevant for hydraulic lifts.


The German lift industry association VDMA has managedto create a good relation with the Ministry in charge(Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales). An Advisoryboard was created in 2004 by the Ministry with several VDMAexperts, to elaborate technical rules for the use of lifts (use,inspection and essential modifications) and to follow theapplication of the Betriebssicherheitsverordnung over time.

This main regulation is a “soft approach” compared to

legislation on safety of existing lifts, based on the filteringmethod advised in EN 81-80, but over time, after severalwaves of upgrading obligations, such as the installationof car doors in 1974 after several fatal accidents, Germanymanaged to upgrade the safety of the vast majority of the liftsinstalled before CE marking, without great tensions on thelift industry companies and their workforce. In other words,there was no fast increase of orders and a subsequent generaldrop, following the timetable of the application of legislation.The industry in Germany did not go through the employmentdifficulties of hiring fast and reducing size again later.

Safety has always been a cultural priority in Germany. Thanks

to trust and good relations between the stakeholders and theadministration, all stakeholders are involved in an advisoryboard consulting the administration in its plans to revise theregulation. There should be no difference made betweencompany employees and other persons that should beequally protected. The revised regulation is also expected tocover the remaining lifts, which were not yet upgraded since2002, either because they did not fall under the definition ofwork equipment or because their owners did not order thenecessary modifications to be made on the lift. It is a “hardcore” of lifts estimated at less than 30 % of the lift stock, thatstill needs a safety upgrade for serious hazards, and the goalwill be to reach out and obtain that the safety of all, workers

or not, be optimized on these lifts as well. The new rule is alsoexpected to create the obligation for all lifts to be maintainedby a qualified company and keep the obligation of inspectedby a third party at the same time.




The Austrian national SNEL legislation (Verordnung 210 HBVof July 2nd, 2009) covers all 74 SNEL risks. Austria selected atwo-tier method:

w 1) A risk assessment had to be carried out by a thirdparty (Notified Body) by a certain date. It is based on theconstruction year. This phase is completed.

w 2) The actual upgrading of the lift by the installer/

manufacturer must be done within a specific time frame,depending on the severity of the risk. The execution dateof the safety upgrading is the date mentioned in the auditreport from the third party inspection body:

• High risks must be eliminated within 5 years;

• Medium risks must be eliminated within 10 years;

• Low risks must be eliminated when the partrelated to that risk has to be replaced following themanufacturer’s requirements.

Austria has also applied a double key:

• Province regulations for lifts in residential buildings,private buildings, public buildings (hospitals, officeblocks……)

• National regulation for all commercial & industrialbuildings (commercial, administrative and industrial,hotels).

Construction year Inspection by third party andrisk analysis at the latest before

Before 1966 31st December 2007

Between 1967 & 1976 31st December 2008

1977 &1983 31st December 2009

1984 & 1990 31st December 2010

1991 & 1995 31st December 2011

1996 & 1999 31st December 2012


based on SNEL

7.4 IMPLEMENTING IN AUSTRIA




All lifts in commercial & industrial buildings were to follow anational programme for the whole country, while residentiallifts were subjected to the same system, but on a provincialbasis

This time frame is valid for both commercial and industrialbuildings on the one hand and public buildings, privatebuildings, and residential buildings on the other.

The programme was first applied to the lifts installed in thecapital region of Vienna in 2006, and was then progressively

extended to the whole country.

The Vienna stock of lifts represents nearly half the lifts inthe country. For that province, the SNEL programme is verymuch advanced. But the 9 Austrian provinces (Burgenland,Carinthia, Lower Austria, Upper Austria, Salzburg, Styria, Tyrol,Vorarlberg, Vienna) are not at the same stage of application. In January 2013, there are still 3 provinces (Styria, Upper andLower Austria) where no provincial legislation imposing thesafety upgrading of residential lifts has yet been passed. Tyroland Vorarlberg will pass legislation in 2013. Salzburg passedlegislation in 2012. The 3 last provinces that have not yetlegislated represent 17 % of the Austrian population.

Each province could select a different time frame for theapplication of legislation: Vorarlberg has imposed 18 monthsonly, so the risk assessment will be completed by the end of2013.


Application started well for the first few years, but difficultieswere encountered for a small number of lifts at the end of the5 year-period (high risks), when the owner had not fulfilled itsobligation to upgrade safety on the lift concerned. This affectssome 5 % of the lifts. The legislation gave owners another 2months at the end of the legal period to put the lift in order, andif not done in time shut the lift. This period of two months hasto be supervised by national inspection bodies. The shutting

down comes with a fine. Another 5 % of lifts were simplyshut to passenger use and dismantled and some passenger liftswere transformed in goods only lifts.

The experience of the provinces which legislated and appliedthe programme early didn’t seem to benefit the provinces thatcame later, unfortunately. These percentages remain constantin the different provinces during application.

The main major result is the reduction of serious accidents onlifts in Austria. Before passing SNEL legislation, Austria had1or 2 fatal user accident every year. Since the beginning of theapplication the number of fatal accidents in Austria has fallento zero. The number of serious accidents has also dropped

significantly, especially in the Vienna region, which benefitedfrom an early start.

The progress status of the programme makes it that for theprovinces that start applying legislation for residential lifts,high risks will be fully covered by 2018 and medium risks by2023. For commercial & industrial building, most buildingsare covered at the beginning of 2013.




Some high risks on lifts were addressed early in Spain, in themid 80’s with ITC-87 (Complementary Technical Instruction),through progressive improvements (i.e. installation of cardoors) and to the end of the 90’s with the draft MC RD 1314(Royal Decree).

Let us also mention Royal Decree 2291/1985, November8th, which ensures periodical maintenance visits and officialinspections by authorized companies and organisations.The MIE-AEMI Order 1987 September 23 (ComplementaryTechnical Instruction) managed over a period of 10 years(regional implementation) to cover a large proportion ofthe known risks on lifts. It established monthly checks andsubmitted lifts to Official Periodic Inspections (OPI) every 2years for public buildings, every 4 years for housing blocksof more than 4 apartments or more than 4 levels and 6 yearsfor other buildings. It is estimated that 33 % of the SNEL riskswere covered thanks to this regulation from the Ministry ofIndustry and Energy, “ Aparatos de Elevacion y Manutencion”(MIE-AEM).

Eventually came the most important piece of legislation: RoyalDecree 57/2005, based on EN 81-80 (SNEL) and its filteringmethod, to cover most risks on lifts. The Decree was published

on February 4th, 2005, with application from August 4th, 2005.

16 SNEL risks covering 23 hazardous situations were selectedwith the following scheduling:

w

1) Improvements 1 to 11 had to be done one year after thenext official periodic inspection of each apparatus:

1. Pit installations: stopping device, lighting & energysupply

2. Car apron suitable to the pit depth up to 750 mm

3. Car doors & cabin positioning indicator

4. Emergency power for lighting & alarm

5. Protection means on sheaves & pulleys

6. Slack rope switch for governor rope

7. Slack rope or motor NO running detection device

8. Unlocked car zone detector in machine room

9. Independent starting contactors

10. Two-way communication emergency alarm device

11. Car roof balustrade when free distance is morethan 0,30 m

w 2) Improvements 12 to 16 had to be done at the moment ofthe next major modification/improvement of the lift

12. Asbestos in brake (when changing brake)

13. Levelling accuracy (when changing driver)

14. Emergency operation system (when changinghydraulic power unit)

15. Accessibility disabled & overload device on car(when changing cabin)

16. Protection against overspeed in up direction (whenchanging cabin)


based on SNEL

7.5 IMPLEMENTING IN SPAIN




The periodic inspections by third parties in Spain are carriedout at intervals of 2, 4 and 6 years, according to the type ofbuilding in which the lift is installed. The programme wasrapidly completed because one third of the SNEL risks hadalready been dealt with in the 1980-90 years.

Appraisal of the programme: On the stock of nearly 1 millionexisting lifts, it is estimated that 450 000 lifts were concerned,having been installed before the application of Lifts Directive95/16/EC and the introduction of the CE marking. Half thelifts installed today are CE-marked. Spain installed before the

recent economic slump, some 40 000 new lifts every year. Ithas now dwindled down to 10 000 units/year. The lift stock inSpain is much younger than the stock of comparable countriessuch as France or Italy, since the economic growth of Spainhappened later, starting in the 1960’s. This explains for a greatdeal the fact that the lift stock was modernized at a very rapidpace compared to other countries. The fact that one third ofthe SNEL risks had already been covered, prior to the 2005legislation, also plays a role.

High and medium risks have been removed, on approximately80 % of the lifts concerned and the low risks on about 50 % oflifts, but the latter is very difficult to evaluate correctly.

LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE with EN 81-80 requirements

Priority RD 57/2005 EN 81-80 (prior legislation covering

only 33 % of SNEL) High 30 % 75-80 %

Medium 33 % 65-90 %

Low 30 % 40-70 % (before RD57-2005)

The level of compliance with the EN 81-80 requirements isnot yet fully satisfactory but it is estimated that half the lifts arefully compliant with SNEL, through the different applicationsteps over time.

Discussions are now on-going with the ministry, for a secondversion of SNEL for the next 10-15 years that would coversome of the risks that have not been covered in the first pieceof legislation, dating back from 2005. The most important ofthese risks not yet covered is probably the UCM (UncontrolledMovement) in up direction. The project was based on SNEL and

on the differences between EN 81-1/2 and prEN 81-20. Theeconomic recession in Spain, especially in the constructionsector, makes it that the authorities are not expected to legislatein the near future.




Other member states have also published SNEL legislation,such as Sweden, or were already covered by a very goodlegislation in terms of safety (Luxemburg).

Other countries have published guidelines or recommendations(Norway, United Kingdom) but did not go the whole way. Inthese countries, it is up to industry to try and persuade buildingowners to do the necessary works, if only to avoid the liabilitiesinvolved in case of accident, when the victim takes the ownerto court.

7.6 IMPLEMENTING IN OTHER COUNTRIES


based on SNEL




8. ELA SNEL Survey tableELA has produced a map and survey table of the progress of SNEL in Europe. This document is made available by the EuropeanCommission on the Commission CIRCA website, and regularly updated by ELA. The version is numbered and on the third page of thedocument, the modifications introduced in this latest version are indicated. This is the best available tool to see at a glance the bestexamples that can inspire countries where nothing has been obtained yet in terms of safety of existing lifts.

GREEN: This colour/grid means: standard EN 81-80 has been implemented through a

national law, including a defined position for the SNEL filtering (= defining the SNELrisks to be covered, including a time-schedule)

YELLOW: This colour/grid means: national legislation or guidelines in preparation

RED: This colour/grid means: a rather slow progress or nothing has been undertakenso far or no information received/available for the EN 81-80 implementation




9. Best demonstrated practicesThere are different opinions on the best path forward for the countries where nothing has happened yet, and the actions to takedepend on the specific situation of each member state. Has there been a prior refusal to legislate? Is the situation blocked inParliament? Has nothing been done yet? Etc...

Still, the best demonstrated practices, and the results obtained, which are visible for example in the French statistics collected beforethe application of new legislation, and since the programme has been put in place and progresses, are very convincing and show thatfatal & serious accidents are much reduced if not fully eradicated on the existing lift stock, after safety upgrading.

9.1 FRANCE

Accidents have been dramatically reduced, both for users andworkers, since the beginning of the application of the FrenchSAE (SNEL) legislation. In 2011 the only fatal accident that tookplace and killed a lift worker happened on a lift that had notyet been modernized. A PowerPoint presentation is available,presenting the results obtained in 2012 (see Members onlysection of the ELA website and the public section “GeneralAssemblies – Warsaw 2012).

9.2 GERMANY

The “Betriebssicherheitsverordnung” application since 2002has obtained very good results across Germany, through therecommendation to owners issued by the notified bodiesduring their periodical inspections. Still the German liftindustry, the TÜVs and the authorities realize that only the liftsused by workers are covered (the great majority of lifts), butalso that some owners have not upgraded their lift, followingthe report and recommendations based on SNEL, made bythe TÜVs. All stakeholders have agreed at the end of 2012, torevisit the guideline and to try to obtain a complete coverageof the existing lift stock in Germany in the coming years.

9.3 AUSTRIA

The programme described earlier implies that the riskassessment on all its lifts has been completed in 2012. Themodernisation programme progresses in most provinces, withthe Vienna region (half the market being nearly completed).Three provinces have not started the safety upgrading of lifts.The Austrian association prepares a report on the impact ofthe SNEL application on accidents occurring on the existinglift stock. ELA will make the report available on its website assoon as it is available. It is a good example of a SNEL safetyupgrading of the lift stock that functions at a relatively slowrhythm; but effectively.

9.4 SPAIN

The programme described earlier has been completed in 2011for the latest works resulting from inspections. The existing liftstock is much younger in Spain than in comparable countries,since the economic development came later. The works to bedone were therefore much “lighter” and easier to organizethan in other countries. The lift industry and the authorities arediscussing an extension of the programme to cover minor risksthat were not dealt with in the 2005 legislation.




9.5 BELGIUM

The Belgian Royal Decree was postponed twice by subsequentministers, under intense lobbying by a group of residentialbuilding owners. The heaviest risks were supposed to beoriginally covered by January 1st, 2008, but it will only bethe case on January 1st, 2014; and the safety upgrading ofresidential “historical” lifts is postponed until much later.These only represent a small fraction of the installed stock oflifts, so the bulk of the SNEL programme will be completedby 2022. It can still be considered as a success even if thesuccessive ministers lacked the necessary resolve to apply anindispensable legislation and postponed urgent decisions onhigh risks for years.

The latest victim of the lack of car doors in Belgium is a studentwho died at the end of 2011 in Huy. He was working at nightcleaning offices and was crushed against the wall of the carby a large bin stuck on the wall; a typical accident that wouldnot have happened if decisions taken in 2004 for high riskshad been applied as initially decided in by the Royal Decree,by 2008. The successive ministers in charge postponed twice

the application of the safety upgrading for high risks. The latestdecision in Belgium (December 2012) involves all stakeholdersand is firm, in terms of works to be done and of timing.




10.1 NORWAY

A good example is Norway, with its new regulation launchedofficially on May 30th, 2008 by the Norwegian Office ofBuilding Technology. The Technical regulation guidanceHO-2/2008 “Endring og reparasjon av heis og rulletrapp”(Modifications & repair on elevators and escalators) hasbecome the basis document for the lift inspections carried out

on all lifts which are not CE-marked in the whole country. Thisrecommendation is dealing with the 27 highest risks definedin SNEL. There are national adaptations proper to Norway,such as the installation of light curtains instead of car doors.Periodical inspections by the notified bodies, that must takeplace every 2 years, will be based on the new SNEL-basedlegislation in the building law. Inspectors have been dulyinformed. They are independent but government controlled.

The lift owners in Norway have shown discipline in respectingthe recommendations made by the inspectors and theexisting lift stock is gradually being improved. It is clearthat this introduction of SNEL has had an influence on theimprovement of safety, through modernization and repair,even if the accident statistics are not sufficiently developedyet to give an indication on the importance of the reductionof accidents & incidents. A great part of the lift stock has beenupgraded already.

10.2 SWEDEN

In Sweden, the legislation in place is not complete. Thelegislation “BFS 2006:26 H 10” dates from the autumn of 2006.It is based on the ten points programme of Recommendation216/95/EC. Most risks of SNEL are covered for Sweden, butthere are still some gaps that would need to be filled in arevision of the legislation.

10.3 PORTUGAL

In Portugal, the government has accepted at the end of 2012 todiscuss an application of SNEL at the same time as it acceptedto integrate lifts & escalators in the transposition of the EnergyPerformance of Buildings Directive. This late decision provesthat it is never too late to promote SNEL and obtain at least thecoverage of the highest risks by legislation.

Next to these very good or good experiences, there are manyEuropean countries where nothing has been done at all ornothing obtained by the lift industry to improve the safety ofthe existing lift stock.

The best experiences were described earlier.

There are other examples of successful legislation or recommendations issued by the government, that have brought good results butunfortunately partial results.

10. Summary of other experiences




10.5 ITALY

In Italy, legislation was passed, but later cancelled. TheItalian lift association AssoAscensori, obtained very early inthe process (2005) that legislation was passed, promotingSNEL. Decree DM 26.10 2005 on the “Improvement of thesafety of existing lifts” never received its application decree.Another decree DM 16.01.2006 “Rules for improvement ofsafety of existing lifts: UNI EN 81-80” was not supported by anapplication decree either.

Finally, an application decree was published and theSNEL legislation was announced to the public: a “DecretoMinisteriale” was signed on July 23rd, 2009 and confirmed inthe “Gazzetta Ufficiale” on August 17th, 2009. Unfortunately,a few months later, following the appeal of the Italianassociation of building owners (Confedelizia), a regional lawcourt, the TAR LAZIO court (Region of Rome), cancelled theDecree, on the basis that it was not supported by an articleof the Constitution, as all these decrees must be. It was atechnicality, but the result is there and the published legislationwill probably never be applied. The Italian lift associations

AssoAscensori, ANACAM and ANICA (Components) clearlyunderstand the need to find another angle of approach. TheItalian lift stock (nearly 1 million lifts) is one of the largest inEurope and is ageing, with serious and fatal accidents everyyear, which indicate that something needs to be done toorganize the safety upgrading of the Italian lift stock.

The Italian example is probably one of the worst, especiallysince the danger of accidents is high and legislation had beenpassed, before being retracted.

10.4 UK & IRELAND

In the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland, no legislationhas been passed and the efforts of the lift industry to informlift owners of the dangers present on lifts, of the necessity toimprove lifts and of the liabilities owners would face in caseof accident, have only had a minimal impact. The accidentstatistics have not been influenced.

There is still a lot to be done in many European countries. Anew approach and a renewed effort are needed.




10. Summary of other experiences

10.6 GREECE

The Greek case is another difficult case, in the sense that theGreek government adopted a SNEL legislation, defining some20 risks that need to be covered, but the new legislation,though voted and published is not applied in practice.

10.7 THE NETHERLANDS

The Netherlands is another case where public management hasbeen poor. The Dutch administration shas for years declaredthat “there were more accidents on the road and that lift safetycould not be a priority, since lifts are already very safe”.

The Dutch Ministry informed the Dutch Lift AssociationVLR by letter (dated 15.04.2005) that there was no needto go ahead with a National SNEL filtering approach andSNEL implementation. The result is that 9 out of the basic10 recommendations (95/216/EC) made by the EuropeanCommission in 1995 are NOT at all taken into account. Onlythe recommendation regarding asbestos is implemented. Allother recommendations relate to safety of the use (car doors,stopping accuracy, alarm, etc.) and are not implemented inany kind of legislation in the Netherlands.

By chance no fatal accident happened since in theNetherlands but the first ones to happen will clearly be dueto a lack of legislation and the refusal of the Dutch authoritiesto legislate in any way. The Dutch lift association wants to

alert the public, the Members of the Dutch Parliament and theconsumer associations of the increasingly dangerous situationof existing lifts in the country.




11.1 PROS (Why is a legislation needed and introduced)

w Higher safety for the lift user;

w Decreasing number of accidents;

w Evaluation of the lift;

w Increase in value of the building;

w Higher safety for the maintenance persons during inspection,

maintenance and /or repair;w Legal requirement is a framework for modernization;

w Lifts technology according to the state of the art(Best Available Technology BAT).

11. A national SNEL legislation?

Pros & ConsWhy should a country legislate in order to improve the safety of the existing stock of lifts?

What are the key Pro’s and Contra’s arguments in a nutshell?

Here are the most important:

11.2 CONS (What are the reasons why a country does not legislate)

w Low awareness about the safety of lifts;

w Reluctance to invest in lift safety if no legal obligation;

w High modernization costs;

w Investments show no immediate improvement of lift safety;

w Ratio balancing: higher safety = higher costs (willingness to

do a little but no major work);w Readiness for modernization increases only after accidents.




12. Recommendations to progress on SNEL for countries

that still need to work on it

Accident statistics are vital for any lobbying effort on theissue of safety. ELA is ready to help, but the last fatal andserious accidents in the country must be listed, with allsuitable information on each case, and the linkage with SNELmade clear. Documents can then be prepared, illustrated bydrawings, to lobby the authorities effectively. How much isone life worth? The association must be ready, in case of aheavy accident, to communicate on the topic and to link itwith one of the SNEL risks. A lack of car door has killed inHeilbronn – Germany as late as December 11th, 2012. Thecountries that have applied SNEL don’t have or shouldn’t havelifts without car doors. A huge difference in terms of safety!

Press conferences, Visits organized abroad, to one of thecountries where SNEL is well applied, with a programme ofmeetings of the political deciders in the visited country andvisits of upgraded installations, might help. Politicians, civilservants and other deciders can form a delegation that iscarefully coached by the association.

The detailed explanation of individual accidents (age of victim,

job, family data, circumstances of the accident,…) taken as“worst” examples of accident in other countries, illustrated ofcourse, can also be an approach that makes the reasons tolegislate clearer to the national deciders.

Other organizations should be on the same wavelength andcould be persuaded to support a national SNEL application:

w Trade unions defend jobs: mechanics jobs for modernizationare highly skilled and cannot be delocalized. The countrieswhere SNEL has been systematically applied have createdlong-term jobs in the modernization sector;

w Consumer associations and disabled organizations shouldbe supportive of an improved and safer environment for allcitizens.

It is regrettable that the European Commission limits itself to asingle recommendation to improve the safety of the exiting liftsin Europe. The recommendation should be further developedand the SNEL requirements converted in a European regulation,not a Directive. The European Recommendation 95/216/ECclearly refers to EN 81-80 (SNEL) as the standard supportingits application, but the European Commission only legislatesfor the present situation and the future; the national authoritieskeep the responsibility for the safety of the existing stock oflifts, based on their differing national legislation.

For the countries where nothing much has happened toupgrade the safety of lifts installed prior to the introduction ofthe Lifts Directive (1995) or where the process has stalled, afresh approach is needed. Here are a few recommendations tomake a new successful start:

The application of “best practices” in Europe is the best option.ELA recommends to carefully analyze the “soft” approach inGermany or the “full” French approach and then to decidehow the association will start re-awakening the topic for its

own country. Use of the experience of countries with existingregulations to define a new approach for countries that stillneed to work on SNEL means a major effort at communicatingwith the public and the national authorities, via the press, thesocial media and other means.

It is in any case interesting to put one person in charge at theassociation level, clearly in charge, and it might be useful tohire a consultant that can be paid a success fee for part of his/ her work. An external consultant will relentlessly come back,pushing for progress, while internally, there are always plentyof other things to do and to drown the best of resolutions.Financing a study on the recurring serious accidents and “nearmisses” in the country and their impact is another way of re-launching the process.

12.1 GENERAL




w The average life time of a lift is 10 times higher than othermeans of transport such as a car or a plane;

w The safety on existing lifts corresponds to the safety rulesand technology at that time of their installation;

w According to the accident statistics analysis the followingpoints should be pushed as primary (minimal) targets:

w Stopping accuracy / levelling accuracy;

w Protection device for automatic doors to minimize risk ofinjury when the door is closing;

w Protection device against unintended car movement (UCM);

w Partial or full modernization? Environmental aspects,energy consumption and accessibility have to be taken intoconsideration

w National events must be conducted in order to discuss

experiences of other countries in the implementation ofSNEL;

w Accident analysis for raising awareness of the owners,associations, national notified bodies, nationalstandardization bodies, and legislator;

w Collection of additional information from notified bodiesabout final inspection, periodic inspections and theimplementation of safety related evaluation of lifts

w A press campaign on safety on lifts is welcome for raisinggeneral awareness in the public.

12.2 ARGUMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS




13. Outside of Europe implementationOutside of Europe the portfolio of existing lifts is also gettingold and the gap in the level of safety between new lifts andexisting ones is beginning to increase at a large scale.

Countries like Australia or Hong Kong have adopted themethodology set up in SNEL standard for improving the safetyof existing lifts within their respective portfolios.

This led ISO TC 178 in charge of standardisation for safetyon lifts, escalators and moving walks to take a resolution in

2007, for preparing a Technical Report, as a first step before apossible standard be published, in order to:

• Share European & other experiences on modernisa-tion for improving safety of existing lifts, and

• Make a recommendation about how to improvesafety on existing lifts.

In a second step, another resolution was taken to publish atechnical specification based on the methodology stated in theEuropean standard EN 81-80

At the ISO TC 178 Plenary meeting of 2011, a new resolutionhad been taken to skip directly to drafting a standard, stillbased upon the methodology for improving safety stated inEN 81-80, and not any longer a Technical Specification. Thisshows the strong will of countries such as China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Australia to upgrade the level of safety of theirlifts portfolio and the benefit they can get from the Europeanexperience.




14. ELA Supporting documents

(bibliography)w SNEL Brochure 04 2013

w SNEL Guideline part 1

w SNEL Guideline Part 2

w Lift Safety for Users - 10 recommendations – 2001

w A list of available PowerPoint presentations SNEL Implementation: pilot checklist

w SNEL Implementation Q&As

w SNEL Brochure Recommendation 95/216/EC

15. Documents available

on the ELA website (public section)

The following documents are available at:www.ela-aisbl.orgwww.ela-aisbl.org

15.1 FRANCE

w

Presentation

by J.L. Detavernier (French Federation – France) 2012 Power Point

15.2 SPAIN

w Presentation by I. Aranburu (FEEDA – Spain) 2012 Power Point

15.3 SNEL FORUM

w Documents (2004)



Boulevard du Souverain 207

B-1160 Brussels

Published by