old shed and safety at work

[mir]

Hi.
status:
I have an old shed (about 20 years) that from al,nebno ten is unused.
Question:
1. if I put it on the road at the seismic level I am obliged to put it to standard (attention that I do not change anything of the structure and the seismic zone 4 has never changed in these years)?
2. In paragraph 1 they say that I am not obliged to do anything... but does that mean any notice in the risks I have to report to the worker?

Thank you.
♪

 

[pollo]

And you would go to a house that has been closed for 10 years without doing anything? Maybe just putting a risk sign "care : can you fall in your head"?
certainly control the state of conservation (among other things is an obligation of tus)
the same tus tells you that the employer has the obligation to update the state of the art in the matter of risk prevention in cases of...
We know that the state of art and technology has changed over the last 20 years: do you not even want to make a verification?
If you need surgery, don't tell him to the dl?

 

[mir]

ok control state conservation ... I assumed it
electrical system remitted to standard and also the anti-cendium

but surely you do not answer the current anti-sysmic.

 

[pollo]

e adeguare no?

 

[mir]

but the question... is it mandatory?

 

[stevie]

I am not competent but found this article:
https://st.ilsole24ore.com/art/noti...ismico-obbligo-meta-071337.shtml?uuid=adrn7k9 from what I have understood the obligation to adapt exists only in case of "relevant restructuring". We wait for the industry experts.

 

[pollo]

I'm with my phone: I have no references, but you should also look at the tus (d. lgs. 81/08) seems to me art. 19. Hi.

 

[AsuraEquation]

If it were obligatory to adapt to the seismic legislation in force each building, I would probably now be rich:
the obligation to adapt (or improvement and eye that is different) seismic is for new constructions or for structural interventions or target changes of use on the old (which seems you do not do).
However I would advise you to contact a technician for inspection and, in case, to aim for a seismic improvement (which is deductible from taxes).
the standardizer has proposed for the purpose a "simplified method" for industrial sheds that provides the structure a minimum of resistance to earthquake and is much less expensive than other roads.
The fact that the structure must not be pericular (which I give for granted).

ps: for the record a few years ago they raised the accelerations to the ground and therefore many (or all I do not remember) zone 4 went to zone 3

 

[pollo]

I was not saying that it is mandatory to adapt, I was suggesting to verify that the Legislative Decree 81/08 provides the obligation to update in some specific cases. I don't know the shed, I don't know if there's any variation in the destination of use, I don't know if they go to put carripontes at greater reach than the previous ones or do different jobs. I only gave a normative reference on which to base decisions, so that it is not only a hearing to say

 

[mir]

I'm with my phone: I have no references, but you should also look at the tus (d. lgs. 81/08) seems to me art. 19. Hi.

obligations of the premise?

 

[pollo]

I was referring to those of the employer (perhaps it is not 19), and for managers and prepositions according to the business delegates

 

[pollo]

you are right, it is art. 18, paragraph 1 letter z:
Article 18 - obligations of the employer and the executive1. the employer, who exercises the activities referred to in Article 3, and the managers, who organize and direct the same activities according to the attributes and competences given to them, must:
...(z) update prevention measures in relation to organizational and productive changes that have relevance to health and safety of work, or in relation to the degree of evolution of prevention and protection techniques;
...
Watch the sanctions.

 

[mir]

I do the dot (and not to defend a posizone to party taken):update prevention measures in relation to organizational and productive changes .... organization and productivity what do they do with the shed? I think it's a smoky phrase that the blame always falls on the employer and/or executive ....

 

[pollo]

bhè, in the specific case, if you put a chariot with greater scope than what was before or if you do a new workmanship not present before, is classified just as organizational and productive change. but we could find a few thousand examples, not knowing anything about the shed and having a generic request.
and yes, the fault always falls on the employer: In my opinion it is right so because only by protecting the employer, what has decision-making power and expenditure, cascade protects everyone.
then maybe there are no variations that force you to do interventions, but a verification I do it and prove that there is nothing to do: That's all.