Open Antony Thompson Martin Banasik Derek Smith Richard Hulmes Open 1. Would the panel agree that it would have been better if the new inspections or test were statutory, as the LOLER? We would agree that if this was possible it would make life simpler for many of us but SAFed, LEIA etc cannot make laws. This is done by governments so the SAFed document is a guide only. 2. Are we to assume that the old LG1 is now finished as of today? Yes it is replaced by the new document. If however you hold a contract to conduct tests in accordance with the previous documents you are legally obliged to do as the contract states. 3. Is the overall cost of complying with guidelines likely to be neutral to industry commerce? At this time it is difficult to tell as it will depend on the reaction of competent persons who may or may not call for tests at more or less frequent intervals. Back to Top Antony Thompson 1. No definition has been given as to what represents a "competent person" is there one, if so what is it? See 1.1.1 of document. 2. Will the HSE consider amending LOLER to require Non-Thorough Exam to be notified to Enforcing Authorities, if supplementary tests are not done? In my opinion - supplementary tests are only called for by the competent person, if considered appropriate and following an assessment based on engineering judgement at the time of the thorough examination. When the competent person identifies a defect involving existing or imminent risk of serious personal injury a copy shall be sent to the relevant enforcing authority irrespective of whether or not a supplementary test(s) was called for at the thorough examination. If supplementary tests were called for by the competent person and were not subsequently carried out, then the competent person may consider not issuing a report of thorough examination until such work has been completed and advising the lift owner accordingly. 3. With regard to section 40 of HASAWA 1974 is it the view of the HSE that the ‰Guidelines­ can be cited and thereby switch the onus of proof from the prosecution to the defence? In my opinion, section 40 HSWA only applies where the offence consists of "a failure to comply with a duty or requirement to do something so far as is practicable or so far as is reasonably practicable, or to use the best means to do something". Once it applies, it puts a burden or onus on the accused to prove that "it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the requirement, or that there was no better practicable means than was in fact used to satisfy the duty or requirement". The defendant would have to prove this on a balance of probability, which is not as onerous as the standard of proof applying to the prosecution (beyond reasonable doubt). The ‰Guidelines on the supplementary tests of in-service lifts­ are not an Approved Code of Practice. They are Industry guidance. An Approved Code of Practice has a special status and the questioner perhaps had this in mind. Guidance which is an Approved Code of Practice can be admissible in evidence before a court if it is relevant to an alleged contravention. Back to Top Martin Banasik 1. Will there be new guidelines issued to assist the competent person carrying out the Thorough Examination? The old guidelines never included full details on the thorough examination of lifts and as such this was one of the anomalies that the new guidelines wished to address. It is the duty of anyone involved in the thorough examination of lifts to ensure that they have suitable and sufficient procedures in place to satisfy the requirement of thoroughness of the examination by persons competent to do so. As such it should the organisations themselves that should draft such procedures and take advice from appropriate authorities as deemed necessary. 2. What if engineer­s signature is a subcontractor? Traceability of signature. This should be acceptable as long as the details of the sub-contract organisation are available and the name is printed for traceability. 3. What is the legal status of the SAFed guide, does it equal an ACOP? No. The guidelines are simply best practice by industry specialists and acknowledged as such by the HSE. An ACoP is a primary means of compliance; however, guidance is a single means (one method) of compliance. There may be other ways of ensuring that any given lift installation is sound and as long as they can be shown to be as good as or better than the guidelines then they can be applied. 4. Will Thorough Examination agencies: i. Treat requests for supplementary tests as requirements, recommendations or observations or develop a new report category? ii. Adopt a consistent approach to not completing further Thorough Examinations if supplementary tests are not completed within the required timeframe? i. The guidelines must be stipulated clearly within the body of any given report in order to highlight their significance. As such the competent person must state what test is required, why it is required and when it is to be completed. ii. SAFed members have and will be guided by a common protocol for application of the guidelines. It is imperative that they apply a strict regime regarding the non-completion of the subsequent thorough examination in order to ensure that the tests themselves and their requests for such tests remain credible. 5. For existing arrangements above for example 1 year e.g. 5-25 years maintenance contracts that have a number of years to go, is it acceptable to continue the ‰LG1­ regime for these extended period beyond today? Contracts entered into after the 1st Jan 2006 must relate to the new guidelines. Where contractual arrangements are in place and were in place prior to this date then they will remain until natural expiry. However, where cover is required for consequential damage due to the application of the tests then it will more than likely be to the new guidelines regime. 6. Will the CP calling for specific supplementary tests, be indicating (where needed) if a load is also required or not? As the tests themselves stipulate the requirements then the competent person will only stipulate such requirements where further clarification is required. 7. If a competent person carries out an initial Thorough Examination on a older installation that has no history of supplementary testing and the Competent Person can satisfy himself the lift is ²safe for continued useÓ does he need to have benchmark tests completed? It really depends on how he has satisfied himself. If it is the case that he has an understanding of the maintenance regime and he has detailed log card entries indicating what work has been done and when, and through discussion with client he has had it confirmed that there are no intermittent faults occurring on the equipment then he may satisfy himself in the short term and then advise his client that through the next few visits it would beneficial to apply certain tests at specific times to check out the integrity of critical load path items and safety critical components and assemblies. If the competent person has no such evidence them he is taking a great risk in assuming integrity and supplementary testing may be his only course of action. In either event, the option to do nothing does not exist. The risk based judgement will dictate how and when to apply the necessary tests to ensure integrity and continued safe use. 8. Will there be new guidelines issued to assist the Competent Person carry out the Though Examination? See A1 above. Back to Top Derek Smith 1. You mentioned "Rope Inspections are unchanged" during the supplementary test briefing, these were part of a thorough Exam in LG1 Ï are they now changing to be a supplementary test? No they are not changing and will normally be conducted by the competent person. There is however new technology being introduced to suspension systems. These technologies cannot be inspected using the previous techniques. In such circumstances it may be that a supplementary test is called for. 2. In section 4.1 the lock earthing test, what period would you consider acceptable as undue delay? Circuit disconnects should be rapid. Normally a second or less but it will depend on the resistance of the lock circuit and the earth return path. Where there are a large number of locks in series they may, even when clean, have combined resistance that result is slow operation or failure to disconnect the circuit CENELEC standards used by EN 81 and other lift standards provide guidance on disconnect times. 3. Safety gear test, if the overspeed governor is not accessible for inspection, which is the case for many old installations, how can we ask for a full speed safety gear test to be done? If safe access to the governor is not available the client should be asked to provide it or some temporary device can be made to activate the governor in a safe manner. 4. Upward movement device test - not all new lifts have the facility to carry out such a test and the lifts are not designed to accommodate such a test, what shall we do in this case? During installation all such devices are required to be tested according to EN81 Part 1 and BS PAS32. You should ask the installer to explain how the test should be conducted or if they were never done the installer should be instructed to do them. 5. Is testing of low pressure valves only required if the Competent Person cannot determine the presence or operation of the low pressure switch? Yes. If the competent person can establish that the low pressure valve exists and works then nothing more needs to be done. 6. Buffer seals have been known to deteriorate and cause buffer failure, so why no buffer test required? The new guide calls for the buffer to be moved up and sown to check its ability to return to its extended position. Moving the piston is normally very difficult and for this reason it is normally done by using the lift car to push it down. When this is done any leaks from seals should be evident and it is assumed that anything that is clearly untoward would be reported or corrected. Back to Top Richard Hulmes 1. What steps are being taken by the statutory inspection providers to communicate the new guidelines to the client base? The information will be communicated to the client base through direct contact via the statutory inspection companies, engineer surveyors, industry publications (e.g. Elevation News), SAFed/LEIA website, engineering brokers, authorities (posted on the HSE/Local authority internet) and hopefully passed on by those in the lift industry who attended the Lift Guidelines Launch. Back to Top