Problems with the design specifications for Phase 1
Thread Content
In a certain phase of the second phase of a project, I encountered some issues when I started working on it. When I asked the relevant personnel, they said that this was part of the design specifications for the first phase; there were discussions about it, but in the end a compromise was reached. Now, what should I do? Should we argue again and clarify the whole situation through meeting minutes, or use it directly? The consequences of this problem aren’t that serious; the probability of an incident is slightly higher, but it remains within controllable limits. It’s the standard practice in their industry; they’ve been doing it for decades without any major accidents. The owners are very demanding; if things aren’t done their way, the project will fail, and it will be impossible to get approval from the bosses. How can I minimize my responsibilities?
Since there is already difficulty in making changes and no major risks involved, it should be carried out in accordance with the design specifications for Phase 1. Before implementation, draft a memorandum for review by the relevant technical departments or production workshops, and submit it to management for approval (or at least inform them), stating that you will follow the specifications outlined in the first-phase design.
It is recommended to report in writing to your superior, outline the relevant outstanding issues, and obtain guidance and instructions from them. If your supervisor delegates this entire task to you for handling, it means that your supervisor is aware of the problem. Then, prepare a statement outlining the relevant issues, send a letter on your organization’s behalf to inform them, obtain a response from Party A, and keep it on file as evidence. If there are good improvement measures, you also need to obtain your supervisor’s approval, and then issue a formal letter from the organization to carry out the necessary corrections. For things of this kind, it’s sufficient to express what needs to be said in writing; there is no issue of arguing. Oh, it would be easier if design institutes and supervision companies were involved. It means expressing things in written form; before sending a letter, it is necessary to communicate with all parties to convey one’s intentions, and then proceed with it. For reference.
In the first phase, the leaders also got involved in the argument.
It seems the leader is also a passionate young person. The suggestions for the 3rd floor are good; also inform the owner and supervisor through a memo so that more people are aware of the countermeasures you have taken.
I have a question: if there are problems with the first phase, why are the owners of the second phase unwilling to make changes? ? Will it require a lot more investment? ? Or some other reason? ? ?
First of all, there is no absolute safety; safety is relative, and various measures are taken only to reduce risks. In the situation you described, it is first necessary to check whether the requirements of the regulations are met. If they are not met, changes must be made; otherwise, any minutes, letters, memos, etc. prepared in such a situation will not relieve you of your design responsibilities. Secondly, if the regulations for Phase 1 meet the standard requirements, and modifying those regulations results in a significant reduction in accident risks, then, if there are solid reasons for this, efforts should be made to convince the owner. You say that the situation might be such that modifications would significantly increase investment, or the reasons given are insufficient; otherwise, there is no reason for the owner not to make the changes.
The modification will significantly increase the investment. The specific aspect involves the calculation of the wall thickness for outdoor high-pressure saltwater pipelines. According to GB50316, approximately 14 mm is required. The owner suggested 11mm; they have been using it for several years already. The investment can save around 30%. In fact, the fundamental reason for system safety is that in this case it isn’t necessary to follow GB50316; instead, calculations can be done based on oil pipelines, with the requirement that calculations be carried out using the pressure at each section rather than the pressure at the pump outlet. Saltwater is less harmful than crude oil, right? The original design documents could not be found, and there was no good way to deal with the situation; all discussions turned into arguments, with the person who spoke the loudest having their way.
What are the opinions of the chief design engineer and the head of the control room?
This post was last edited by Clouds of flowing water shine on 2020-7-6 08:13. It’s noisy too. During the first phase, I pinched my nose and did as the client requested.