Do chemical plant buildings have to be airtight?
Thread Content
Recently, a chemical plant in the vicinity was under inspection by the environmental protection authorities. The authorities deemed that it was not acceptable for the plant’s facilities – which are used for producing organic intermediates with a high fire risk – to have an open frame structure; such facilities had to be enclosed. They required the company to provide evidence supporting the use of an open structure, otherwise the facilities had to be enclosed with bricks. I’m not aware of any reasons why chemical plant facilities could be designed to be open; I’ve simply seen that many chemical plants, especially large petrochemical plants, use open frame structures. I would appreciate everyone’s advice: is it necessary for a chemical plant facility to be airtight? What is the basis for chemical plant buildings to be open? Thank you!
Reference: GB50016-2006 \"Code for Fire Protection Design of Buildings\"; it seems that the 2008 version is still under revision and has not been put into effect yet. Among them, in 3.6 Factory (Warehouse) – Explosion Protection, 3.6.1 states that factories of Class A and Class B, which are prone to explosions, should be located separately, and it is advisable to use open or semi-open designs for them. Its load-bearing structure should preferably be made of reinforced concrete or steel frames and shear wall structures. The 08 revised version is already available on the forum: http://bbs.hcbbs.com/viewthread.php?tid=431939. If you need the 06 version, please contact me via short message. For reference! This post was last edited by Fightinghard on 2009-4-21 15:57.]
This kind of situation would not occur if the environmental protection department and fire departments worked together on inspections. The fire department can be asked to persuade the environmental protection agency.
I would like to ask the environmental inspection authorities: why must chemical plant facilities be enclosed? Has the safety of the workers inside the factory been fully taken into account when making this request?
No authoritative guidelines and standards were found. I can only share my personal opinion: The safety authorities are concerned about the impact of these \"organic intermediates\" on the safety of the factory itself and the safety of its workers; therefore, it is necessary to keep the factory open to ensure good ventilation. On the other hand, the environmental protection authorities focus on the impact of these \"organic intermediates\" during the production process on sensitive areas in the surrounding environment, such as residential areas, hospitals, schools, etc. Therefore, it is necessary to seal off the factory building in order to prevent harmful emissions from affecting the surrounding environment, which leads to conflicts between the views of the safety authorities and those of the environmental protection agencies. By the way, I have two questions for the original poster: 1. Are the \"organic intermediates with a fire hazard classification of Class A\" referred to by the poster in the form of powdered solids or gases, and what is their toxicity level? If this intermediate is a non-toxic gas, the factory building should be completely open. But if it is a toxic gas or a powdered solid waste, it should also be exposed to the air, as it is humans who are operating inside the facility. But if it is completely automated with no people involved, then a closed factory building is used. 2. Are there any residents, schools, hospitals, or employee housing within 200 meters of this workshop (the exact distance depends on the health protection distance specified in the workshop’s environmental impact assessment report)? If neither is available, the factory building can be left completely open for the safety of the operators. Whether to shut it down or not requires the people from your company to discuss the matter with the environmental protection authorities based on the actual circumstances (such as the properties of the organic intermediates, the operators in the production workshop, and any sensitive elements in the environment surrounding the workshop), as there’s no way to make a one-size-fits-all decision.
I think chemical plants should not be shut down, as mentioned above; especially those that handle flammable and explosive gases, as shutting them down can easily lead to explosions
Chemical plant facilities should be kept open or semi-open to facilitate ventilation
In accordance with professional design standards, the environmental protection department’s arguments are valid; however, the professional competence of the individuals involved is not that high – they know what to do but not why.
This should be determined based on the specific circumstances of the production process; what is specified in the procedures may not be practical.
Given the conditions in our company, I believe it is better to seal off areas with high noise levels and those containing toxic gases; while areas that require cooling or generate flammable and explosive gases but are non-toxic should be left open.
If you had acted more professionally on site, they wouldn’t have said anything.