Covering of the accident emergency pool

This is indeed a bit troublesome; it’s uncertain whether this plan will pass the fire safety inspection. I can only offer suggestions. If this solution is feasible, then the top cover should be fixed and non-removable; it will be necessary to break through the side wall of the sink, re-arrange the rebar, and pour the top cover and the side wall together as a single unit. Moreover, this permanent cover should be designed in accordance with the technical requirements of firewalls.

I have a question: if you were a member of the fire safety review panel, would you approve of this approach? If you disagree, what are your reasons? Thank you.

Every place is different; it’s necessary to take action. It’s recommended to use a cover – as long as that makes things acceptable. Additionally, include some descriptions of objective reasons (such as the properties of the materials, alarms for flammable or toxic gases, etc.). The key is to take action; whatever private work needs to be done must still be carried out；

Originally, this matter violated the relevant regulations, but by taking certain measures it can barely be justified; the severity of the issue can vary. It’s necessary to carry out preparatory work in advance, and it’s best to have drawings from a design institute as well as a plan for making corrections, so that all preparations can be done ahead of time； Don’t keep asking others on forums; **rules are created by humans, and some of those rules have issues. You need to do your job well and also ensure that proper corrections are made ； From my personal point of view, if the owners become aware of this issue and take action next time, I am in agreement with that. But since I have no interest involved with you, I won’t express my opinion directly ； In short, follow the specifications strictly; if there are drawings from a design institute, that’s ideal ；

I think using a covered approach (precast concrete slabs, steel structural covers) will work; any cover with sufficient load-bearing capacity will suffice.

To ensure compliance, it is recommended to invest in hiring a local design firm to develop a solution plan (a process change order that outlines the corrective actions required; the design firm will then stamp this document, giving it legal validity). With such a document, experts and the local emergency management agency will also approve the plan, as the design firm assumes responsibility for any risks. Once experts see that work was carried out according to the design firm’s drawings, in the event of any issues, the main responsibility lies with the design firm； Of course, the fees charged by design firms for preparing rectification plans and adding stamps are not cheap either

I once purchased a 20m3 fiberglass tank to be buried underground as an accident containment pool; only a manhole was left on the surface, and the fire safety inspection was approved. You can consult third-party companies about your specific approach and hear their opinions.

I really hadn’t paid attention to this issue; if there’s a need to stamp something, it’s better to stamp everything. Emergency collection tanks do collect a large amount of material in the event of a leak. If volatile materials are involved and the distance from an open flame is insufficient, relevant risks indeed exist. It is recommended to seal these tanks completely and install additional devices for capturing and treating exhaust gases; this way, any exhaust gases released during a leak can be captured and processed, thereby reducing the likelihood of accidents

This violates the mandatory regulations; in any case, it’s best to have the design team prepare a change order

What was said on the 5th floor is very apt! Putting this topic aside for now, let’s discuss what harms can arise from covering emergency pools For example, as mentioned on the 9th floor, if volatile flammable substances leak out, wouldn’t it be more dangerous after everything is covered? Will experts still raise similar questions!