SNEL

1
SNEL

• A SUCCESSFUL NEW STANDARD FOR EUROPE

2
WHY SNEL ?

• EN 81-80
• THE SAFETY STANDARD FOR
• EXISTING EUROPEAN LIFTS

3
WHY SNEL ?

• Europe (15 states) has
• more lifts
• than North America
• 3 500 000 lifts

4
WHY SNEL ?

• Europe has more lifts than North America
• France, Germany are historically at the forefront
  of vertical accessibility

5
WHY SNEL ?

• Europe has more lifts than North America
• France, Germany are historically at the forefront
  of vertical accessibility
• Result On average, lifts are older in France
  than in Spain for example

6
WHY SNEL ?

• European Lift directive 95/16/EC ensures safety
  of NEW lifts

7
WHY SNEL ?

• European Lift directive 95/16/EC ensures safety
  of NEW lifts
• Member countries must take care of EXISTING lifts
  (subsidiarity rule).

8
WHY SNEL ?

• European Lift directive 95/16/EC ensures safety
  of NEW lifts
• Member countries must take care of EXISTING lifts
  (subsidiarity rule).
• Existing lifts respect safety rules as applied on
  the day of their installation!

9
WHY SNEL ?

• European Lift directive 95/16/EC ensures safety
  of NEW lifts
• Member countries must take care of EXISTING lifts
  (subsidiarity rule).
• Existing lifts respect safety rules as applied on
  the day of their installation!
• A car of 1960 is NOT safe today, neither is a
  lift of 1960!

10
WHY SNEL ?

• The only indication available to all European
  states about existing lifts is EU Recommendation
  95/216/EC. It lists 10 general recommendations
  and refers to standard EN 81-1/2 for technical
  details. This reference needs to be changed to EN
  81-80 (SNEL), now that the new specific norm for
  existing lifts exists. We lobby the European
  Commission for a re-publication with correct
  reference.

11
WHY SNEL ?

• Fatalities happen every year in Europe!

12
WHY SNEL ?

• Many accidents remain unreported (at least 10
  times more than recorded accidents!).
• Bad level accuracy and tripping can kill!

13
WHY SNEL ?

• Causes of fatal serious Users accidents
• Bad stopping accuracy (5.2.2)
• Lack of car door (5.8.3)
• Lack of positive lock (5.7.7)
• Unexpected movement of the car (5.9.4)
• Inadequate glass in door (5.7.3)
• Entrapment (5.14.3)

14
WHY SNEL ?

• Causes of accidents to Workers
• Unsafe pit access (5.5.8)
• Unsafe access to machine room (5.9.4)
• Insufficient protection against electric shock
  (5.13.1)
• Slippery floor in machine room (5.2.2)
• No stopping device on car roof or inspection
  control station (5.14.3)

15
WHY SNEL ?

• Accidents tend to cluster in countries where
  legislation is inadequate

16
WHY SNEL ?

• Accidents tend to cluster in countries where
  legislation is inadequate
• SNEL Filtering Method must be applied in each
  country, in order to identify safety priorities

17
WHY SNEL ?

• Accidents tend to cluster in countries where
  legislation is inadequate
• SNEL Filtering Method to be applied in each
  country, in order to identify safety priorities
• Fool-proof anti-vandal systems are needed

18
WHY SNEL ?

• Accidents tend to cluster in countries where
  legislation is inadequate
• SNEL Filtering Method to be applied in each
  country, in order to identify safety priorities
• Fool-proof anti-vandal systems are needed
• SNEL, EN 81-80, sees to it all. It is a de
  facto harmonization of European lift safety

19
WHY SNEL ?

• The mobility chain must remain fluid

20
SNEL STATUS

• SNEL is reality already
• Belgium Royal decree since March 2003
• All 74 risks are covered. Progressive
  selective improvement of safety (high risks by
  2008 low medium risks by 2013). Standard
  published.
• France Law since July 2003 4 application
  decrees since November 2004 (17 major risks
  representing 44 SNEL items). Scheduling in 3
  steps July 2008 July 2013 July 2018.
  Standard published.

21
SNEL STATUS

• Germany  Betriebssicherheitsverordnung  since
  October 2002, applies the Use of Work Equipment
  Directive (UWED) 89/655/EC, amended by 95/63/EC
  and 2001/45/EC. All risks covered for lifts used
  by workers (85 of lifts). 12 risks are
  considered high EN 81-80 is used by TüVs as a
  guideline for risk assessments, in regular
  controls. 1/4th of lifts already audited.
  Standard published.

22
SNEL STATUS

• Spain Royal Decree published in February 2005,
  applied from August 2005. It covers 16 items (5
  items only in replacement). Scheduling in 2, 4
  and 6 years. One year to carry out the work after
  inspection by national inspection body (items 1
  to 11) and items 12 to 16 to be done when
  improvement carried out. Standard published.
• United Kingdom No legislation. BSI has published
  EN 81-80 in Dec. 2003. SNEL becomes the official
  code of practice. UWED is already a legislation.
  National filtering has been applied by the lift
  association LEIA and results published.

23
SNEL STATUS

• Luxemburg Law from 1992 covers all 74 risks
  listed in SNEL, except 7. Case still open today.
  Standard published.
• Denmark almost all SNEL requirements already
  implemented in 1997 law (doors, alarms, locks,).
  EFA will ask for new more complete legislation.
  Standard published.

24
SNEL STATUS

• SNEL is reality soon
• Italy National filtering published by UNI in
  May 2004. Law text is ready, approved by the
  Italian governement and submitted to Parliament
  April 2005. It covers all 74 risks and
  accessibility. Standard published.
• Austria National filtering has been applied (all
  74 risks covered). Legislation is in preparation.
  Presently, 5 items of SNEL (workers safety) are
  part of TüV checks. Standard published.

25
SNEL STATUS

• And the others?
• The Netherlands the  warenwetbesluit liften 
  (Sept. 2003) leads to conformity checks on 38
  checkpoints (17 SNEL risks, only workers) during
  periodical inspection. Governement reluctant but
  willing to start national filtering. Standard
  published
• Switzerland No federal legislation cantons
  responsibility. Only Geneva canton has introduced
  a law to apply legislation covering 11 of 74 SNEL
  risks by 2008. Standard published.

26
SNEL STATUS

• Norway National law (1985) demands all building
  installations to be state-of-the-art for safety.
  HLF association has informed all owners of new
  standard EN 81-80. An industry workgroup lobbies
  the government to use EN 81-80 in present
  legislation. Standard published in June 2004.
• Finland Governement refuses to make EN 81-80
  mandatory. Applied on a voluntary base. Every
  modernisation is linked to SNEL. Standard
  published in 2004.

27
SNEL STATUS

• Sweden Discussions have started with governement
  that does not see immediate need, since new law
  on maintenance and safety inspections was
  published in August 2003. Standard published.
• Portugal Lift association has prepared the
  national filter (15 risks retained) and asked for
  government schedule. Missing accident statistics
  and cost make the government reluctant to
  implement SNEL. Legislation on maintenance
  periodical inspection from 2002. SNEL forum to be
  organised in spring. Standard published.

28
SNEL STATUS

• Greece SNEL national filtering started in 2004.
  Time schedule hoped for in 2005. Standard
  published.
• Poland PKN will publish the standard in 2005.
  Efforts to introduce EN 81-80 in Polish
  legislation should start in 2005.
• Hungary Translation of standard in progress.
  National filtering prepared by Lift Supervisory
  authority (EMI FMF). No mandate for new law.

29
SNEL STATUS

• Slovakia Standard published in October 2004. 8
  local risks for old elevators were added to 74
  SNEL risks. No legal support foreseen. No
  national filtering yet.
• Czech rep. Standard published. No national
  filtering yet. Separate local norm CSN 27 4007
  lists 74 risks 8 local risks. No political
  support.
• Slovenia Standard not yet published in Slovene.
  No lift association in Slovenia.

30
SNEL STATUS

• We are far from a European-wide application of EN
  81-80 yet.
• A backlash is not impossible in Belgium, the new
  Minister in charge has lengthened the application
  process by 2 years, under pressure from owners
  (March 2005)
• Countries like Switzerland or Sweden are not much
  more advanced than Portugal or Poland.
• We need to help each other. The more countries
  adopt legislation, the higher the pressure and
  the faster we will complete the scheme and have a
  European-wide SNEL

31
SNEL STATUS

• Backlash in Belgium ! What happens ?
• 80 000 lifts in country (60 older than 20 years)
• Main issue car doors not compulsory
• Royal Decree (March 2003) imposed on all owners
  of lifts to have independent control between 2004
  and 2006. Modernisation had to happen by 2008 and
  2013.
• Late lobby of newly formed owners group obtains
  correction an re-publication of Royal Decree by
  Minister, against industry, unions and consumers
  opinion.

32
SNEL STATUS

• Backlash in Belgium ! What happens ?
• New version of Royal Decree gives 2 more years to
  owners for risk analysis by third party, to 2008.
  No investment planning imposed.
• Modernisation has to be done by 2013 and 2018 (in
  place of 2008 and 2013)
• Lifts older than 1958 must have risk analysis
  done by 2006
• Generally, new legislation gives industry more
  time to absorb new jobs (under 1 billion )

33
SNEL STATUS

• THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION