Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Stuart99  
#1 Posted : 14 August 2024 08:49:59(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Stuart99

Hi, We have a new internal raised gantry area with chemical blending tanks penetrating the floor, the building control inspector has indicated this is being regarded as a mezzanine and needs fire protection cladding underneath to give 30 minutes fire protection ( We have a sprinkler system under the platform). However, when compared to BS 5980-1: 2012 requirements there are some discrepancies due to the open nature of chemical plant access areas and pipe penetrations.

So question to chemical processors what standards are your internal access and working platforms constructed to, and level of fire risk assessment to justifiy your position.

Edited by user 14 August 2024 11:41:36(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Kate  
#2 Posted : 15 August 2024 08:05:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

At the chemical plant I worked at there were no such protections for the platforms and no one ever thought of such a thing.  However, that was a very old plant (which has since been demolished) and expectations may have changed.

Roundtuit  
#3 Posted : 15 August 2024 08:29:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Is this a traditional platform - occasional operator access for process checks/cleaning/maintenance? If so it may be that your inspector is applying an inappropriate set of rules for presumed versus actual usage. One area to watch is how many access points as it could be the plan/build includes insufficient egress pushing the need for protection. You don't mention size - 200m2 seems to be the threshold for mezzanines to fall under planning requirements.
Roundtuit  
#4 Posted : 15 August 2024 08:29:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Is this a traditional platform - occasional operator access for process checks/cleaning/maintenance? If so it may be that your inspector is applying an inappropriate set of rules for presumed versus actual usage. One area to watch is how many access points as it could be the plan/build includes insufficient egress pushing the need for protection. You don't mention size - 200m2 seems to be the threshold for mezzanines to fall under planning requirements.
peter gotch  
#5 Posted : 15 August 2024 10:44:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi Stuart

First point - what is the norm may not be an appropriate benchmark for a modified building.

So it might be that lower standards might apply to existing plant within a building, on the basis of so called "grandfather rights", but these would not apply for a new installation or modification. 

May be time to go back to those who planned these changes to find out what was discussed at the outset of the project inclusive of what liaison there was with the Planners and Building Control.

Also this project was probably within the scope of "CDM" so perhaps time to see what information was provided by the Design Team and taken forward into deliverables inclusive of the Health and Safety File.

[Not the time for a detailed discussion of the application of CDM!]

Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.