– Roy’s Blog –
Safety Laws
There should never be a time when security is prioritized over safety, but it does happen on occasion. On January 1, 1993, federal law began requiring all residential door operators to equip a monitored external entrapment protection device in the form of an infrared photo-eye kit. At the beginning of the program, there was an allowance for photo-sensors or a safety bottom edge. However, because safety edges were customized depending on the door width, while photo-sensors were not, the sensors quickly dominated the landscape. Photo-sensors also became the primary external safety device selected because they could be installed on any door up to 40 feet wide. Door operator manufacturers knew that this was a huge selling point since the operators had to be sold ready to complete any installations.
At first, some homeowners were unfamiliar with the new federal law or the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 325 safety standard. This led to misunderstandings over the new safety measures and the refusal of photo-eye installation. Homeowners who’d never had any safety measures on their doors didn’t consider safety as important.
On August 29, 2010, UL 325 was amended again to require external entrapment protection devices for commercial doors. Most of the time, commercial doors use photo sensors because they can be applied to most door widths in commercial or industrial applications. However, in many instances, a photo-sensor kit is not the best choice and can be substituted for a monitored compatible safety edge. The photo-sensors must be installed no higher than six inches from the floor. The 6-inch rule is based on the size of a small child’s cranium, which is approximately 6 inches in diameter.
Conflicts in Safety
In August 2017, I went back to doing tech support and have heard of many field conflicts, especially common with fire stations, with the six-inch rule. Basically, when an operator is installed on a fire station door, the photo-sensor installation follows almost immediately. Most garage door installers are familiar with the six-inch rule and commonly obey it. However, the fire chief usually makes his inspection afterwards and claims that the photo sensors are too low to protect the fire truck bumper. Within the span of one week, I heard this complaint 3 times, and the installer always wanted to know what could be done. In this article, I hope to describe some legal solutions.
The first thing to consider is that the fire chief may not be familiar with UL 325. You can try to educate them by showing them copies of DASMA TDS #351, #363, and #364, as everything you need to know about photo-sensors is in those three technical data sheets. I firmly believe that no fire chief, once educated, would choose to make the wrong decision when it comes to safety. After all, safety is their entire business!
I would also make sure to tell them about a few different alternatives. First, I would tell the fire chief that they don’t have to install photo sensors, but that the alternative would be applying constant pressure on the close button. This option is usually unpopular because you can no longer employ wireless remotes or wire in a timer to close. Another more expensive option is to install a monitored safety bottom edge or another pair of photo-sensors at an extra cost, which protects the entire opening from top to bottom. Once you’ve installed the monitored photo-sensors at the six-inch height, you can install any other non-monitored photo-sensors anywhere you please. Installing a compatible bottom safety edge with the installation of the photo-sensors at any height can still be legally compliant as long as it’s functioning correctly.
My personal choice is to install an approved, compatible safety light curtain. Light curtains come in many lengths and protect the opening for the entire length of the light beam. In other words, a 36-inch safety light curtain will protect from the floor up to 36 inches high, which will detect a pallet of goods. This complies with the 6-inch rule and will protect the fire trucks’ precious bumpers. Basically, if someone gives you a hard time with the placement of the sensors, you could use the situation to appease them by providing more safety at a higher cost. I bet that when customers realize that less safety costs more, they will submit and leave you alone to do the right thing.
When Security Comes Before Safety
Another call I got was from the security department at Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals. The security guy wanted to know how to disable the photo sensors, as they had recently had an operator installed on a security grill where five million dollars in pills were stored. He told me that the installation company would not remove the sensors, and I agreed with them. I tried to explain UL 325 and entrapment protection to him, but he wasn’t interested. He told me, “When we push the close button from down the hall, we have to ensure the grill completely closes and the pills are secure.” He didn’t like that anyone could walk through the beam and reverse the grill, then walk into the vault and steal the drugs. I explained to him how a safety edge worked, and I thought this would be a helpful solution. He balked at this idea because he said anyone can hit the bottom of the door and reverse it, so he said, “NO!NO!NO!” His response was always the same: “We have other motorized grills without any of this nonsense.” I tried to explain that UL 325 changed in August 2010, but he had made up his mind that there would be no safety provisions on this grill. I tried to convince him to go with constant pressure on the down button, which would provide passive safety. Once he found out that the door would bounce open if you released the close button, he also refused that idea. I told him it would only take 12 seconds to hold the button until the door touched the floor. His response was, “Who is going to pay his man overtime while he waits 12 seconds for the door to completely close?” As ridiculous as every answer was from this guy, I continued to look for a reasonable solution. Even removing the photo-sensors completely so that the operator would revert to constant pressure upon closing was unacceptable to this hardhead. I got nowhere with this guy and, in the end, had to conclude that in some cases, security will unfortunately override safety.
Keeping Your Company Safe
I asked the security agent which door company and installation service they used, but he would not tell me. I wanted to call them and have them draw up a waiver that protects them from any damage or lawsuits, in case there was an accident, injury, or death from the door. A waiver is not a foolproof way to avoid liability, but it might help if you are sued and need to appear in court. It is important that you don’t seem negligent or uncaring! I also wanted to assure the installation company that I would be available to help them in court in case the worst happened. In the end, I believe this door was installed without the safety protocols. So, I guess this time, security did win over safety. But this should only happen in extreme cases! SAFETY FIRST!