Equipment Platforms: IBC or OSHA

[Structures7]

I'm trying to locate any specific language in the 2015 IBC ("code") regarding when to use OSHA for the means of egress and design of walkway/stairs that serve equipment platforms.

I find it helpful to define a couple of terms per Chapter 2 of the code:

Equipment Platforms. An unoccupied, elevated platform used exclusively for mechanical systems or industrial process equipment, including the associated elevated walk-way, stairways, alternating tread devices and ladders necessary to access the platform (see Section 505.3)

Occupiable Space. A room or enclosed space designed for human occupancy in which individuals congregate for amusement, educational or similar purposes or in which occupants are engaged at labor, and which is equipped with means of egress and light and ventilation facilities meeting the requirements of this code.

Means of Egress. A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from an occupied portion of a building or structure to a public way. A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge.

Based on the definitions above, it's my understanding that an equipment platform that satisfies the list below, can be designed per Section 505.3 of the code.

1. Is used for mechanical and industrial process equipment.
2. Is subjected to workers who are engaged at labor, where that labor involves servicing or using said mechanical/industrial process equipment.
3. DOES NOT contain any rooms or enclosed spaces.

Take note of item #2 in the list above. Can this equipment platform be considered "unoccupied", based on the fact that rooms or enclosed spaces are NOT present? If not, one would ask the question as to why a walking platform would ever be present, if not for use and maintenance (labor) at that particular piece of equipment.

Section 505.3 states, "Equipment platforms shall not be a part of any mezzanine and such platforms and the walkways, stairways, alternating tread devices and ladders providing access to an equipment platform shall not serve as a part of the means of egress from the building."

If that's the case, what determines the design requirements for the means of egress via the stairs used to get off the platform? The code seems to only provide design criteria for stairways that serve occupied portions of a building (Section 1011.1)

At this point I believe the design (ie relative locations, width of travel, depth of landings, etc.) default to OSHA. Is anyone aware of an IBC section that plainly states the use of OSHA in this regard? Based on the code's referenced standards, I don't see OSHA being used this way.

How should this be navigated to safely design and protect the workers, the owner, and the licensed design professionals that issue these sorts of drawings?

 

[Structures7]

Please note that the original post is not in regards to the structural design (loading or member capacity) of equipment platforms, walk-ways, or stairs.

 

[TheCommish]

OSHA inspector enforce OSHA requirements and business with employees in accordance with the Federal regulations..
Building Official enforce the requirements of the building code.
the 2 do not mix

 

[Structures7]

If that's the case, then wouldn't you see a number of industrial settings fail building inspections? OSHA

 

[Structures7]

If that's the case, then wouldn't you see a number of industrial settings fail building inspections? OSHA's criteria for stairs allows a steeper rise/run for stair treads and a more narrow stair-way. In that event, any building code inspector would fair the stairs leading to most equipment platforms, no?

 

[steveray]

If that's the case, then wouldn't you see a number of industrial settings fail building inspections? OSHA's criteria for stairs allows a steeper rise/run for stair treads and a more narrow stair-way. In that event, any building code inspector would fair the stairs leading to most equipment platforms, no?

We might call that a ship's ladder.....

 

[tmurray]

I'm not sure I see the issue.

Using the definitions you posted, equipment platforms, including their stairs, are considered unoccupied space. Means of egress is only required from occupied space.

Will someone be up there when there is a need to evacuate the building? Maybe. Will there be so many people that people are delayed in exiting the building due to the design of the stairs or ladder? Probably not.

 

[Structures7]

Right... so the Building Official is not looking at these stairs and trying to apply the provisions of the building code. How does the official know that those stairs don't belong in their review? I'm looking for a clear line here.

So far we're talking about interpretations of the IBC and OSHA. Does anyone know if this is explicitly stated in either sets of documents?

 

[bill1952]

I can only tell you those of us in the live entertainment industry had some of same problems with the platforms etc. over stages and over seating to light stages. That's why I proposed and got accepted a number of specific code changes for these unoccupied spaces. (Not sure if studied all would say unoccupied - especially when you find sofas, tvs, fridges, etc.) They generally follow OSHA - 22" clear, ladders, ships ladders, spiral stairs, etc allowed. Some guard exceptions. 100' cpet (should change that to 400'). The second way out can be a means of escape - e.g. a roof hatch or similar - to solve the cost.

In my design work I would often check OSHA for things not in IBC. Hatch openings (30" x 30" clear). Ladder details like the clear 7" behind ladder and maximum height before a cage or landing or a fall protection device is needed.

No one really covers tops of ladders and hands sliding off stiles that just end with no warning.

Not perfect and still needs well intentioned designer to make it reasonably safe.

 

[tmurray]

Right... so the Building Official is not looking at these stairs and trying to apply the provisions of the building code. How does the official know that those stairs don't belong in their review? I'm looking for a clear line here.

So far we're talking about interpretations of the IBC and OSHA. Does anyone know if this is explicitly stated in either sets of documents?

Well, means of egress is defined as being required from an occupied portion of the building. Equipment platforms are unoccupied according to their definition.

If this official needs more direction than that, they need another job too.

 

[klarenbeek]

If the platform is for mechanical equipment, look in section 306.5 of the IMC. It has the specs for ladder requirements. Guard rail requirements are in 304.11.

 

[Genduct]

I'm trying to locate any specific language in the 2015 IBC ("code") regarding when to use OSHA for the means of egress and design of walkway/stairs that serve equipment platforms.

I find it helpful to define a couple of terms per Chapter 2 of the code:

Equipment Platforms. An unoccupied, elevated platform used exclusively for mechanical systems or industrial process equipment, including the associated elevated walk-way, stairways, alternating tread devices and ladders necessary to access the platform (see Section 505.3)

Occupiable Space. A room or enclosed space designed for human occupancy in which individuals congregate for amusement, educational or similar purposes or in which occupants are engaged at labor, and which is equipped with means of egress and light and ventilation facilities meeting the requirements of this code.

Means of Egress. A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from an occupied portion of a building or structure to a public way. A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge.

Based on the definitions above, it's my understanding that an equipment platform that satisfies the list below, can be designed per Section 505.3 of the code.

1. Is used for mechanical and industrial process equipment.
2. Is subjected to workers who are engaged at labor, where that labor involves servicing or using said mechanical/industrial process equipment.
3. DOES NOT contain any rooms or enclosed spaces.

Take note of item #2 in the list above. Can this equipment platform be considered "unoccupied", based on the fact that rooms or enclosed spaces are NOT present? If not, one would ask the question as to why a walking platform would ever be present, if not for use and maintenance (labor) at that particular piece of equipment.

Section 505.3 states, "Equipment platforms shall not be a part of any mezzanine and such platforms and the walkways, stairways, alternating tread devices and ladders providing access to an equipment platform shall not serve as a part of the means of egress from the building."

If that's the case, what determines the design requirements for the means of egress via the stairs used to get off the platform? The code seems to only provide design criteria for stairways that serve occupied portions of a building (Section 1011.1)

At this point I believe the design (ie relative locations, width of travel, depth of landings, etc.) default to OSHA. Is anyone aware of an IBC section that plainly states the use of OSHA in this regard? Based on the code's referenced standards, I don't see OSHA being used this way.

How should this be navigated to safely design and protect the workers, the owner, and the licensed design professionals that issue these sorts of drawings?

OSHA is concerned with WORKER SAFETY !!!!!!!
I don't believe they would be comfortable commenting or trying to enforce their rules for the General Public OR Occupants.
It would be outside their Jurisdiction and the mandate of the Legislation