EN 81-80-2019 pdf download.Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts – Existing lifts – Part 80: Rules for the improvement of safety of existing passenger and goods passenger lifts.
After the upgrading of a lift by one or several of the appropriate measures the remaining hazardous situations should be documented and recorded for future upgrades and general awareness to manage any residual risks.
In a periodic scheme or whenever the use o the lift has changed, a new audit should be carried out in order to check whether the previous assessment needs to be updated.
5.2 Identification of hazardous situations
Annex A contains a checklist which shall be used for identification of the hazardous situations relevant for an individual lift. This list contains all hazardous situations indicated in 4.1. The hazardous situations have been listed on the basis of experience gathered from registered accidents as well as specific risk assessments. The state-of-the-art for safety of the European lift standards (EN 81 series of standards, particularly EN 81-20:—) served as a basis for risk reduction measures.
There may be additional hazardous situations for very old lifts or lifts with special technology which are not covered by this document. In this case additional risk assessments shall be performed to identify hazards and risk reduction measures.
The identification of the hazardous situation can be carried out in the course of any periodical survey or special examination on a given installation, but only technically competent and sufficiently trained persons should be allowed to carry out these examinations. This can be subject to national regulations.
When extreme risks are identified during an audit immediate action to mitigate or lower the risk shall be taken if the lift is kept in service. Corrective actions shall be carried out as soon as possible to eliminate the risk.
5.3 Evaluation of hazardous situations
The hazardous situations as listed in 4.1 were subjected to risk assessment in preparation for this standard.
The risk assessment was based on the assumption that an existing lift either has no or Insufficient equipment for preventing the hazardous situations.
Table 2 shows the original risk profile which can be present in existing lift installations which have not been brought up to safety levels in accordance with state-of-the-art standards.
In the risk profile in Table 2 some risks appear twice. The background for this double assessment is that some hazardous situations can lead to different effects. e.g. to high severity with a lower probability and to medium severity with a higher probability. Accident statistics may show different experiences from country to country. In these cases the double assessments should demonstrate that, even if high severity accidents may not be experienced in a country, there is still a certain probability for medium severity accidents.
However Table 2 does not strictly apply to every existing lift. Earlier local requirements valid in individual countries may already include requirements which cover many of the hazardous situations in 4.1. Some of these requirements can be regarded as almost equivalent to the state-of-the-art standards.
Some of these requirements may have just partially covered the hazardous situations, which means that the remaining residual risk may be still too high compared with the safety level which is achieved for a lift in accordance with the state-of-the-art standards.
This Is why re-evaluating the risks and comparing with previous national standards will lead to filtering the risk profile. On the one hand hazardous situations covered by almost equivalent requirements can be eliminated from the risk profile. On the other hand the residual risk can be re-evaluated and re-ranked in the risk profile. This filtering process may be done at national level.
The risk caused by no or inadequate lighting of the well (risk number 2.14) should serve as an example here:
Considering the worst case the risk assessment implies that no well lighting exists. The respective risk Is evaluated at severity level 1 and probability level D and also at 2 C-D. Consequently the risk levels in the original risk profile (see Table 2) are high, which means that risk-reducing measures are necessary in any case.
Former valid standards already required permanently installed well lighting. Such well lighting had to be mounted at determined positions in the well, but, in contrast to more recent standards, a defined intensity of illumination was not required.
Therefore the well lighting used earlier cannot be considered to be equivalent to the well lighting used today. However, lifts equipped with well lighting in accordance with former standards have certainly a lower residual risk than lifts without well lighting. Consequently the remaining residual risk can be shifted to lower risk levels than the original risk profile, i.e. to 1 D-E or 2 D, for example.
5.4 Classification of priority levels
As mentioned before, upgrading all existing lifts to the state-of-the-art for safety at the same time may not be possible for various reasons. This is why a procedure is recommended here which allows subdivision of the hazardous situations in priority levels which then can be mitigated in several timed steps by the respective measures proposed in this document.
The priority levels in Table 3 and Table 4 have been specified for the purpose of this document slightly deviating from the safety levels of the risk profile according to EN ISO 14798. The risk profile is subdivided in 4 priority levels (see Table 3 and Table 4) where only three of them are of practical relevance.
These priority levels are defined in accordance with safety considerations only. However, implementation of measures to mitigate the risk is also a question of economic consideration.EN 81-80-2019 pdf download.
EN 81-80-2019 pdf download
PS:Thank you for your support!
