18.07.2003

Controversy surrounds EN280 and CE approvals

The harmonised standard EN280 for Mobile Elevating Work Platforms (MEWPS), published one year ago in the Official Journal of the European Union, allows manufacturers of aerial work platforms to self-certify their machines. To do this they must comply strictly with its standards and subsequently place a technical file with a notified body. Leigh Sparrow, former senior vice president of UpRight, reports for Vertikal.net .

The harmonised standard EN280 for Mobile Elevating Work Platforms (MEWPS) was finally published in the European Journal on June 14, 2002. According to the publication, manufacturers of aerial work platforms are now able to self-certify their machines by complying strictly with EN280 and lodging a technical file with a notified body

Alternatively, manufacturers may continue to use a notified body to carry out a third party certification. In this case, the notified body will carry out its own tests and risk assessmentsand check compliance with essential safety requirements of all relevant directives before certifying the machine. Notified bodies are not required to follow EN280 in every detail. Their overriding obligation is to ensure that the machine meets the essential safety requirements of the directives, while referencing a variety of rules, regulations and standards. A directive is law, while a standard is just that, a standard or guide.

In practice, most notified bodies will follow EN280 fairly rigorously due to the fact that it is the most recently approved standard for MEWPS, although the rapidly approaching ISO standard could replace it in a year or two.

Deadline: July 2003?

One year on from the publication of EN280, some new issues now come to the fore. Towards the end of the EN280 process, the French government threatened to effectively veto EN280 by invoking the EU’s safeguard clause. This would have allowed it to continue to demand that platforms imported into France include additional items on the basis that these were essential for safety. The EU is always keen to avoid the use of the safeguard clause on the basis that it is the thin end of the wedge that begins to erode single market objectives. Thus, at the tail end of the process, a requirement for full-blown overload indicators and cut-outs, on all but a few excepted units, was added into EN280, in spite of the fact that it had been rejected during the drafting process as not state-of-the-art.

As a result, all new product introductions or approvals issued since June 30 last year must feature a full overload system, (in effect a full blown load moment indicator) to obtain CE approval and certification. However, machines designed and certified prior to July 2002 can still be built and sold without the fitting of these load moment devices. This means that you can still legally buy new, CE approved, platforms that are not fitted with load moment devices provided their design was approved before June 30, 2002..

The Italian government argued that this mixture of standards would be difficult to enforce and would penalise new machines that would have to meet the more complex standards. It therefore lobbied for all CE certificates prior to June 30 2002 to be suspended as of June 2003 and only reissued if a compliant overload device had been added to the machine.

The European Commission’s standing committee for directive 98/37/EC, Committee TC6.2, originally appeared to endorse this view. This provoked a unanimous outcry from the work platform industry, supported by a strong lobbying effort by IPAF and a strong appeal from many EU governments. This caused TC6.2 at its December 2002 and March 2003 meetings to unanimously reject the Italian proposal to suspend CE certificates issued prior to June 30 2002. TC6.2 instead declared that CE certification for existing machines would not be suspended.

If any member state wished to block a machine with a pre-July 2002 CE approval, it would need to be justified locally on the grounds that the machine was no longer safe. This is an unlikely scenario because of the exceptional safety record of MEWPS, and because accidents caused by overloading are almost unheard of. It should also be noted that most scissor lifts are already fitted with a simple, effective overload device at the point of platform lift off.

In reality, the rapid pace of development in the aerial lift market means that most of the pre-July 2002 certificates will expire over the next two years as new models are introduced. Commercial pressure will also come to bear when the reliability of such devices fitted to new machines is proven. This more gradual process will most certainly better serve the industry and give manufacturers time to fine tune and improve the technology, while avoiding significant product cost increases at a time when rental rates are at an all-time low. It is also important to note that, at this time, it is far more important, in safety terms, to increase the use of MEWPS, particularly in construction work, than to add further cost and complexity to these products which have done so much to increase safety while working at height.

EXISTING FLEETS

So where do users and rental companies stand on this complex issue? First of all, none of the above has any affect whatsoever on existing fleets. When you buy a platform, you should always demand a copy of the CE certificate for your own records. As long as the manufacturer has a valid CE approval, as indicated by the certificate, you have nothing to worry about.

Should you insist on the fitting of overload systems on new machines? This is a decision for you to make and feel comfortable with. On boom lifts, the systems are now reaching the point where they are relatively reliable and well-proven, while the extra cost represents a relatively small proportion of the machine’s total cost. So, if in doubt, you may feel that adding this option will give you an edge. However, generally speaking, you will not achieve higher rental rates for the unit and it is very questionable as to whether the safety of the machine is actually improved. With regard to the possible future obsolescence of your boom, do not be concerned. Most systems are easily retrofitted and costs for these devices are expected to fall over the next couple of years.

For scissor lifts, it is a different story. When the industry and the rest of Europe submitted to French pressure, the general consensus was that the clause did not affect scissor lifts. This was because they were looked upon as type A machines, where the centre of gravity does not move outside of the machine’s base. However, due to allowable slopes and deck extensions et cetera, most notified bodies have classified scissors along with booms and all new product introductions will require a full load moment system.

On a small electric slab machine, this is a total nonsense! And, due to the high percentage cost, this could slow the take-up and reduce the utilisation of these units in the workplace, thus impeding, rather than enhancing, safety.

The systems for scissor lifts are only now being developed in a hurry to meet the initial concern that, from July 1, 2003, such devices would be mandatory on all new machines. As TC6.2 has now indicated that existing CE approvals are still valid, I would strongly recommend that you do not request the optional fitting of such a device at this time. The industry is working hard to develop a reasonably priced and reliable system for scissor lifts, which is likely to be incorporated into new product launches later this year.

TIME EXPIRED CE Certification?

A further issue affecting some manufacturers concerns a notified body placing a time limit on a CE approval. When CE certification started in the early 90s, some notified bodies imposed a five-year life span on their CE approvals. This has now been challenged , as the directives do not call for the re-certification of a product unless the design changes significantly, or, unless a notified body believes that a machine it initially approved is subsequently deemed unsafe.

The question is; What can manufacturers do with CE approvals that have an expiry date? Can they simply ignore the expiry date? Can they demand that the notified body reissues the certification without the expiry date? The answer is to speak with the notified body and, given the current thinking on this issue, it is likely that they can be persuaded to extend the certification indefinitely.

NOTE:
The five year span concerns the issuing of a ce certificate for new machines produced, once a machine has been sold with a current CE certification that certificate for that specific unit is good for all time unless the machine is substantially modified.