Issue 5/2004
09/02/04
SNEL Forum in Brussels
Dr.-Ing. Gerhard Schiffner
On June 4, 2004, the European Elevator Association ELA held a forum in Brussels focussing on issues relating to the safety of existing lifts and the measures taken on a national level to improve this safety. More than 150 participants from 18 European countries accepted the invitation. Representatives from the lift industry and from national ministries, notified bodies, associations representing disabled persons as well as the European Commission took part. A dinner was organized the evening before the forum to give everyone the opportunity to get to know each other and allow first bits of experience to be exchanged.
Category: Issue 5/2004
Posted by: Editor
The next morning the president of the ELA, Jürgen Reuning (Fig. 1), opened the forum and explained to the participants why SNEL is so important for the safety of existing lift systems in Europe. SNEL (Safety Norm for Existing Lifts) is a synonym for the EN 81-80 norm and its implementation in national regulations and for other measures taken to improve the safety of existing lifts. Some 4 million lifts are presently operated in the enlarged European Community, most of which are older than 20 years. This figure even includes lifts that were manufactured in the 19th century.
Fig. 1: Jürgen Reuning, President of ELA
The Lifts Directive 95/16/EG imposes a fine safety level for new lifts. But in most of the European countries the existing lifts are probably still operated in accordance with the rules and regulations valid at the time they were built. But a lift built in the sixties of the last century is far from meeting present safety standards and therefore embodies a number of risks that may cause accidents. Each year some serious accidents (Fig. 2) happen which could have been avoided if the equipment had been updated to meet state-of-the-art standards. A lot of accidents are not reported, so that the statistics available only represent a fraction of the actual number of accidents.
Fig. 2: Typical accident suffered by passengers
Primary reasons for passenger accidents:
- Inaccurate levelling of cars at the landings.
- Missing car door.
- Missing safety device preventing a faulty locking of doors.
- Uncontrolled car movements.
- Inadequately glazed doors.
- Passengers getting trapped in the car.
Available accident statistics show that in the past three years these causes alone stood for 18 fatal and more than 1000 serious accidents in Europe. Most accidents suffered by servicing and inspection personnel were caused by:
- Unsafe access to the shaft well.
- Unsafe access to the machine room.
- Inadequate protection against electrocution.
- Slippery machine room floors.
- No emergency brakes and no inspection controls on the car roof.
These causes, too, stood for many fatal and serious accidents.
The number of accidents is higher in countries which in the past had inadequate regulations governing the condition and testing of lift systems. The process described in EN 81-80 allows the most prominent risks to be pinpointed and suitable measures to improve the safety to be selected in each specific country as a function of the lift’s year of construction. Today, lifts must be foolproof and fit to be used by everyone. A barrier-free access to all floors of a building will be a standard that will have to be met in most of the countries in the years to come. Lifts will play a decisive role in this particular issue. Therefore a lift design allowing people with a disability to properly use the lift will also be an important aspect of lift modernization. SNEL (EN 81-80) takes into account all these aspects and is therefore the decisive tool for improving the safety of existing lifts.
Afterwards Michael Savage (Fig. 3) explained SNEL’s essentials. Michael Savage has been the chairman and driving force of the CEN working group that worked out EN 81-80. He first referred to the Commissions’s recommendation 95/216/EG to improve the saftey of existing lifts which was published together with the Lifts Directive 95/16/EG. This recommendation was not binding on the member states and with its 10 exemplary measures only provided a rough outline of the total number of possible measures. In order to supplement and specify the recommendation, the idea was born a few years ago to work out a European Norm on the basis of a risk analysis. This idea was fully supported by the members of the CEN and the European Commission.
Fig. 3: Michael Savage, chairman of CEN/TC 10/WG 10
The national regulations governing the condition of lifts have been under constant development since the early 20th century, so that safety has been continuously updated to reach its present level (Fig. 4). But this also caused the gap between the safety levels of old existing lifts and new lifts to widen. In our society the needs of people with disabilities and elderly people now have another value. Today, lifts should be accessible to and be fit for use by anyone, even to people with disabilities and/or with a reduced mobility.
Fig. 4: Gradual improvement of safety
EN 81-80 contains the following essentials:
- Reference is made to the engineering standard (EN 81 – parts 1, 2, 21, 28, 70, 71 and 73);
- Measures taken to adapt to the current engineering standard in as far as this is practically possible under structural aspects;
- Risk profile for 74 significant risks and the measure priority levels derived from this profile;
- National filtering process for a gradual implementation;
- Proposal on implementation periods;
- Check list to identify the deficiencies of an existing lift system.
(A detailed report on the contents of EN 81-80 is included in Lift-Report edition 4/2002, page 6.)
SNEL was worked out with the assistance of experts from the industry, notified bodies, consumer organisations and insurance companies, which surely has been the main reason why all CEN countries gave their full approval. SNEL also found recognition all over the world. In Australia, for example, it was actually implemented before being published. SNEL’s successful application is based on the following:
- SNEL is based on a largely objective risk analysis;
- High, medium and low risk and priority levels are assigned to each corrective measure;
- This allows the safety to be improved step by step;
- SNEL allows the risks to be filtered for each specific country;
- SNEL includes a check list allowing an existing lift system to be inspected independently.
Finally Michael Savage asked the participants to the forum the following hypothetical question: wouldn’t you prefer all European lifts used in your own country or on private and business trips to feature a similar safety standard? And undoubtedly every answer would have been a positive one. He therefore called upon everyone to implement SNEL as quickly as possible in the whole of Europe.
Bas Treffers (Fig. 5) as representative of the European Disability Forum (EDF) reported on the needs of passengers with disabilities. Until quite recently Bas presided the CEN/TC 10/WG 7 as chairman and took an active part in establishing EN 81-70. He first reported on an accident of the Dutch railways where a train running at low speed collided with a stationary train. 7 passengers were seriously injured. The accident was caused by an outdated safety system. The railway operator indicated that although the safety deficit was known, no funds required to improve the safety standard were made available because of political piorities. This is a typical example of political indifference towards safety aspects whenever there are financial problems.
Fig. 5: Bas Treffers, European Disability Forum
A similar situation exists in residential buildings occupied by elderly and disabled people. Most of them could stay in their flats if they were accessible without barriers. But the buildings often have no lift. The installation of a lift system years after the building has been erected often fails because of structural and financial problems. Consequently these people can no longer take care of themselves, need to be supported or nursed or are forced to move into a nursing home. In the long run these costs considerably exceed the investment made for planning an elevator from the beginning or for installing an elevator at a later date. It is often sufficient merely to furnish an existing lift with elements suitable for being used by people with disabilities (Fig. 6). This is another significant aspect of SNEL.
Fig. 6: Typical problems of elderly and disabled people
Not only the people with disabilities benefit from an appropriate design of the lift. People with a temporary disease or injury, elderly people or parents with prams are restricted in their mobility. Some 20 % of the population benefit from a barrier-free access to buildings. The EDF supports these people. It represents more than 45 millionen disabled persons in Europe. By active lobbying the EDF has accompanied the year 2003 as the year of people with disabilities and has promoted a European Disability Directive. This unfortunately found no political acceptance. At least the target was defined to create until 2010 a Europe that is accessible for everyone. This target now has to be followed up and implemented by national programs. For the configuration and design of lifts, EN 81-70 includes all the necessary signifant information. The implementation of SNEL will bring us closer to a barrier-free society.
Jorge Ligüerre (Fig. 7), chairman of the ELA Communication Committee, explained the national measures as yet taken to improve the safety of existing lifts. Implementation has made the best progress in Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Spain and Germany. These countries have already published or will soon publish specific statutes and regulations dealing with the retrofitting of existing lifts. The number of issues and the realization periods differ. Belgium requires only a few important items to be retrofitted in two steps until 2008 and 2013. In addition, a risk assessment needs to include all SNEL items and any supplementary measures need to be derived if necessary.
Fig. 7: Jorge Ligüerre, chairman of the ELA Communication Committee
France and Spain specify concrete measures which also have to be realized in periodical steps. France particularly specifies measures which must be taken to prevent vandalism. Luxemburg already implemented an act in 1992 according to which lifts have to be adapted to the current engineering standard. In October 2002 Germany published the operational safety act according to which a risk assessment has to be carried out for lifts. SNEL proves to be an excellent aid to identify safety deficits and to derive the required corrective measures.
In the Netherlands, Austria and Italy national regulations are being prepared. SNEL’s filtering method could allow any existing deficits to be identified and proposals for corrective measures to be derived in these countries, too. Different kinds of activity were started in Great Britain, Portugal and Sweden. In the rest of the former member states as well as in the ten new member states no noteworthy steps have yet been taken. Jorge Ligüerre concluded that activities got started in most of the member states which will lead to a successful implementation of SNEL. The safety of passengers and workers as well as aspects of accessibility are included. In the end, the safety and accessibility of lifts will be improved. SNEL and the exchange of experience will prove to be very helpful in this process.
In the course of the next item on the agenda several representatives from national ministries again presented their country’s initiatives. Patrick Levasseur (France), Hans-Joachim Stoof (Germany), Timoteo de la Fuente (Spain) and Renoud Collette (Belgium) (Fig. 8) later discussed various interesting aspects with the audience:
Fig. 8: Representatives of national ministries (from left to right): Patrick Levasseur, Hans-Joachim Stoof, Timoteo de la Fuente, Renoud Colette
- Lift operators must expect liability suits should they ignore the regulations governing the improvement of safety.
- The commissions’s recommendation to improve the safety of existing lifts will be revised soon, a special reference being made to the SNEL to assist in establishing national regulations.
- From a statistical point of view only about 1 % of the lifts is modernized to the current engineering standard every year. Without active measures taken to improve safety, the safety gap between old and new lifts will widen.
- In most countries the contens of the Use of Work Equipment Directive is not sufficiently implemented. This directive already includes essential elements needed to improve the safety of workers.
- Since liability risks of old lift systems are increasing, higher insurance premiums should be payable. This aspect has mostly been left out of account. But if an operator knows the risks involved and fails to take the necessary corrective actions, the insurance may refuse to pay damages.
Fig. 9: Philippe Lamalle, chairman of the ELA Regulations and Standards Committee
In another paper Philippe Lamalle (Fig. 9), chairman of the Regulations and Standards Committee, explained the role of SNEL from the standpoint of the industry. The lift manufacturers first of all have to inform their customers of all relevant regulations. On a European level not only the Lifts Directive and Machinery Directive but quite a number of other directives governing labour protection, product safety and product liability of lifts need to be considered. Only if all relevant regulations are taken into account, can the safety of a billion passengers be ensured every day. Measures taken today may prevent a critical situation to crop up in 15 years. These measures protect passengers, building occupants and employees, provide access for people with disabilities and protect the environment (Fig. 10).
Fig. 10: Typical risks for workers
The industry is offering the customer a consultation on how he can maximize the improvement of safety with an optimized investment. This consultation also protects the customer against legal problems. The consultation also increases the value of the property by reducing the risks and ensurance premiums, by providing improved access for elderly and disabled people as well as by improving the running behaviour of the lift. This will reduce the running costs and improve the availability of the lift. In addition to that a qualified service meeting EN 13?015 standards is offered which also guarantees the safety and reliability of the lift during operation. In order to achieve all this, the industry will make available its know-how and knowledge. It will prepare and assess statistics, determine risk-reducing priorities, propose solutions and collect information about error sources.
On the other hand the industry is expecting all fellow players on the market to support the same safety approach and the manner in which the safety issue is treated, and that operators and authorities recognize the urgency of the situation and are prepared to actively eliminate the safety deficits. In order to be able to reach this goal, the industry has taken an active part in the preparation of EN 81-80, makes the required adaptation for new standards, supports the establishment of national rules, works out technical guide manuals and follows up the success of the measures taken by collecting statistical data. EN 81-80 and EN 13?015 are excellent guides which can be used to improve the safety of existing lifts and to warrant this safety standard in the long run. But suitable national regulations are needed to implement these standards.
Anton Marschall (Fig. 11) from the Austrian TÜV used his country to refer to the role which the notified bodies are playing. He presented the accident statistics of Austria and the typical accidents. 50 % of all accidents in Austria could have been avoided by taking only 3 preventive measures: a good stopping and levelling accuracy (20 %), an adequate supervision of the door (16 %) and car doors (14 %). (In its edition 3/2004 on page 66 Lift-Report already reported on the situation in Austria).
Fig. 11: Anton Marschall, head of the conveying division of the Austrian TÜV
The last speaker of the day was William Orchard (Fig. 12), chairman of the ELA Quality, Safety and Environment Committee, who put the question: Why SNEL? In a few conclusions he summarized the papers presented in the course of the forum:
Fig. 12: William Orchard, chairman of the ELA Quality, Safety and Environment Committee
- Europe has the world’s largest number of lifts. More than half are older than 20 years.
- The age structure substantially differs from country to country. In France, for example, the number of old lifts is higher than in Spain.
- Because of the subsidiarity principle the member states are obliged to look after the safety of existing lifts.
- A lift manufactured in 1960 can no longer be regarded as being safe today.
- Serious and fatal accidents happen in Europe every year. The number of unreported accidents is estimated to be 10 times higher.
- The main reasons for the accidents are similar in most countries. They have already been presented in Jürgen Reuning’s report.
- Many fatal and serious accidents could have been avoided if the SNEL proposals had been considered.
- SNEL helps the national filtering process used to identify the risks existing in a specific country, to classify them in certain priority classes and to select appropriate corrective measures.
So why SNEL? Because the people which are part of our mobile society expect safe and reliable means of traffic and transport accessible to everyone.
Fig. 13: Luc Rivet, General Secretary of ELA
The General Secretary of ELA, Luc Rivet (Fig. 13), addressed some concluding remarks to the audience and thanked them for participating in the meeting and for the interest shown in the various topics. Doing so, he concluded an excellently organized forum in the heart of European politics. The huge interest and the high-ranking representatives from many European countries show that the Commission’s recommendation some 10 years after its publication is finally bearing fruit and has found its way into national regulations in many member states. SNEL has played an acitve role. To the member states in which a decision is still pending or which yet take a sceptical stand towards an improvement of the safety of existing lifts, this forum offered many positive incentives, arguments and examples which can be used by the national boards and committees. It has become appartent to every SNEL forum participant that the SNEL train is put in motion and that in most of the member states this train will reach its goal: the improvement of safety of existing lifts.
5/2004
