Interpretation of 1996 BOCA rule 3004.3.1greenspun.com : LUSENET : Elevator Problem Discussion : One Thread
Many suburban municipalities adopt BOCA national code as model for local building code without enforcing referenced standard A17.1 inspection requirements. "It's the owners responsibility to do the elevator inspections" and cite stated rule as reasoning. I belive the rule simply places financial and scheduling responsibiltiy with the owner and that the test must be still witnessed by a QEI (either a municipal employee or authorized representitive). Looking for input and/or written interpretations from anyone who's implemented (or tried) municipal inspection program. Thanks to all.
-- Kevin Doherty (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 18, 2000
I too, agree that the adoption of BOCA or for that matter any of the national building codes require all elevators to be tested in accordance with A17.1. The problem you will find is with enforcement of that particular code. From the most simple solution of local building inspectors requiring QEI inspection and documentation before the building is accepted for occupancy would place the oriiginal or acceptance burden of cost on the general contractor or elevator contractor. All existing elevators should be tested periodically according to code. The rub, as always, is enforcement. If you do not have penalties for non-inspection or for that matter, shut-downs for non-inspection you will never get them inspected. It is a costly pain for the elevator companies and they will try anyway possible to avoid them. Many states are going the route of independent elevator inspections which shift the liability off the states and onto the elevator inspectors. These are done in MO, AR, TX, DC, FL, and IN and may be done in elsewhere. As an independent inspector I am amazed at the sad condition of the elevators with "full maintenance contracts" and heaven help those with POG contracts.
-- Sheila Swett (email@example.com), January 30, 2002.