Elevator safety being compromised: Mitchell
The territorial government is risking the safety of Yukoners to save money, according to Liberal Leader Arthur Mitchell.
The territorial government is risking the safety of Yukoners to save money, according to Liberal Leader Arthur Mitchell.
The Public Works department, however, says it is saving money by rolling back unnecessary inspections of elevators in government buildings.
The suspension in February of a $94,000 contract with ThyssenKrupp Elevator to do monthly inspections hit the floor of the legislative assembly last week.
Mitchell used it to hammer the government over the multimillion-dollar deficit it posted for the last fiscal year's spending.
"The government's actions could have endangered the health of its workers, its clients and, most shamefully, the seniors and disabled citizens who rely on elevators and handicap lifts,” Mitchell charged during question period last Wednesday.
"Just to save a few bucks when it has already a $23-million deficit, it held firm to its decision to cancel this essential safety maintenance.”
Public Works Minister Archie Lang said he was unaware of the matter but would "get to the bottom of it.”
According to Public Works spokeswoman Doris Wurfbaum, the decision to suspend the contract did not compromise the safe operation of more than three dozen
elevators and lifts in government buildings.
"The service contract originally initiated for monthly inspections exceeds the necessary requirements so ... in suspending the contract, public safety was never jeopardized,” Wurfbaum told the Star. "It came up that we were over-servicing the elevators, so why do we want to spend money on something that wasn't necessary?”
Regulations for the Yukon government's Elevator and Fixed Conveyance Act stipulate that "all elevating devices are inspected on a regular basis or following a major repair or installation.”
The act does not, however, outline a specific time period for what constitutes "regular basis”.
Elevator inspections used to occur once a year before the government contracted ThyssenKrupp to do monthly inspections, Wurfbaum said.
The current contract with ThyssenKrupp is not the first such deal between the elevator dealer and service provider and the government and would likely be amended to include inspections, albeit less frequently, Wurfbaum added.
According to Ontario's Technical Standards and Safety Authority, inspections of elevating devices are based on five factors: the safety and performance rating of past periodic inspections, the number of floors in a building, performance rating of maintenance/installation company, age of device and the type of building.
The oldest elevator in a Yukon government building is located in the main administration building, constructed in 1974, and Yukon College, built in 1984, houses the newest elevator system.
Wurfbaum could not say how long ThyssenKrupp had been doing elevator inspections for the territorial government, nor provide rationale for why Public
Works opted to go with monthly inspections when they were not required by legislation.
Attempts to reach Rob Houston, the inspector for ThyssenKrupp who was engaged in fulfilling the current contract when it was suspended, were unsuccessful as of press time today.
Comments (5)
Up 0 Down 0
Arn Anderson on Apr 15, 2010 at 2:47 am
I propose YTG create the Elevators Inspectors Unit. A highly specialized unit for solving problematic elevator cases. Transfer half of the RCMP force to the roster and we will see results. The sad thing is they probably will create this unit while REAL crime goes unnoticed.
Up 0 Down 0
John Carroll on Apr 13, 2010 at 7:06 pm
I believe this use of the words Inspections is misleading. Monthly contracts such as this are normally Maintenance Contracts and involve inspection, lubrication, and adjustment of the equipment. Cancelling such a contract will inevitably lead to a deterioration in reliability, performance and ultimately safety if no maintenance is carried out. I hope they have good insurance!!!
Up 0 Down 0
mosi on Apr 8, 2010 at 12:25 am
Hmmm. I smell money under the table for someone here.
Up 0 Down 0
paul slinger on Apr 7, 2010 at 12:26 am
elevator's that old inspection's should be every 30 day's. at the very least every 90 day's which will be t&m in the long run it will create less safe and reliable equipment at a higher cost than having a regular monthly maintenence contract
Up 0 Down 0
anonymous on Apr 6, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Its good to make reference to other jurisdications, but its better to think things through and give us your own defensible rationale for doing something.
If there was a reason for the original monthly inspection regimine, then that reason will be on the record, and should be made public. As well, an expert should be speaking, rather than a talking head voicing kitchen table common sense such as "It came up that we were over-servicing the elevators, so why do we want to spend money on something that wasn't necessary?”.
When it comes to elevating devices and other regulated publicly used equipment, surely the government has an expert, on payroll or hired, who can advise the public of the specific thinking involved, rather than answering important questions by asking an inane one, the latter being somewhat of a "Father Knows Best" approach. Poor Doris...."who put her up to it" is the real question.
In all, none of this issue's handling instills confidence in the way regulated, public systems are being cared for. Didn't Sheila Fraser's comments get acted on yet?