The design institute designed a nitrogen blanketing system for the company’s storage tank area, but failed to include pressure gauges in the design. Is the design institute liable?
Thread Content
Section 3.2.4 Reuse Design in the \"Unified Regulations on the Content and Level of Detailed Drawings for Chemical Process Design\" states that when a standardized design is reused in certain parts of the process flow, or when complete sets of equipment (units) provided by the manufacturer are used, the reused sections or complete sets should be indicated on the drawings using a double-dashed line outline. I would like to ask for clarification regarding the interpretation of this provision. The design institute failed to carry out the design in accordance with relevant laws and regulations. For instance, in the design of the storage tank, a nitrogen blanketing system was specified, but no pressure gauge was designed into it. Who bears the responsibility for this?
Tank designs are either copied from previous design drawings for modification, or modified with reference to the process package; P
For nitrogen sealing of storage tanks, the design institute is responsible for designing the pressure gauges; it is the duty of that institute； However, for complete sets of equipment, the design institute does not need to design instrument points such as pressure gauges, as these are part of a complete set and it is the supplier who is responsible for designing such instruments, including pressure gauges and thermometers
Both the design institutes and the complete-set supply vendors bear responsibility, and as the project owner, one cannot evade primary responsibility either – the processes of \"three inspections and four determinations\" as well as technical oversight are not properly carried out. In fact, as long as no serious accidents occur, it is the leaders in higher positions who decide who is at fault. :lol
This post was last edited by jia87314968 on 2022-10-10 at 14:28. In standard design documents, the specifications referenced in the design work are specified; if a design firm proceeds with the design in violation of those specifications, it is certainly liable for that. Secondly, in the design documents, the designers also specify the scope of work. In some projects that involve complete systems, it is indeed the supplier who is responsible for the relevant design; this depends on how the contract is drawn up, and whether the design institute is required to handle the design of those complete systems.
The signing of design contracts must also comply with the requirements of relevant laws and regulations. Therefore, I believe that the basis for determining responsibilities or conducting accident investigations remains the laws and regulations, such as provisions regarding the primary responsibilities of enterprises and the requirements set out in documents concerning the simultaneous implementation of various aspects in construction projects. Therefore, my view remains that the design agency should be responsible for the design of the safety facilities for the production units, including those for the entire set of equipment! It is inappropriate, in my opinion, for some design institutes to outline entire sets of equipment using cloud lines and thereby exclude them from the scope of design.
However, the special section on the design of safety facilities for individual tasks requires specifications for the safety facilities of complete sets of equipment, along with expert evaluation. It can’t be said that since it’s not a complete set of equipment, the design unit is no longer responsible, or that expert reviews can be excluded from the design scope of this project.
Since the design was not carried out in accordance with the standard documents, the design institute is definitely responsible
It should be designed this way; otherwise, in the event of overpressure or loss of pressure, without any monitoring, accidents are likely to occur...