Serious doubts regarding the validity of standard specifications
Thread Content
In chemical engineering design, standards of various levels such as GB, GB/T; HG, HG/T, SH, SH/T are generally referred to. So what about their validity? For example: 1 \"Unified Regulations on the Content and Depth of Construction Drawings for Chemical Process Design\" HG/T20519. In fact, the drawing regulations set by each design institute do not always follow this standard; is its validity then merely for reference only? Some people say that what’s mentioned above is just drawing; it has nothing to do with production safety, so anything will do. 2. Article 3.0.4 of the \"Regulations for the Basic Design of Chemical Engineering Equipment\" HG/T20643: The top surface of the foundation for indoor equipment shall be at least 100 mm above the ground level. In one project, the equipment in the manufacturer’s production workshop was all placed directly on the ground, without any foundations raised above the floor. I said it’s prone to erosion by surface water and that a foundation is needed, but they don’t care; what’s the point of that? It’s just a recommended standard, not a mandatory requirement! 3. Petrochemical standards: Owner’s reasoning: I’m not a petrochemical company; why should I refer to SH’s standards? In situations like this, many people say that one should follow which specification strictly and act in accordance with those rules. All I want to say is: those who work in these institutions don’t have to worry about food or drink. If we do this, no property owner will hire you to do the design. We will strictly comply with what the regulations require, but we should not unnecessarily raise standards for matters not specified in the regulations. But what about the issue of normative validity? ? ? I definitely think the regulations in our country are a bit chaotic; many of them have very weak effectiveness. Please share your opinions
Those marked with /T are recommended standards, not mandatory
The regulations were originally a bit chaotic; similar devices were governed by different regulations, and there was no consistency among them. What are the differences between \"should\" and \"must\" in the regulations, and later on, bold text was introduced as the so-called mandatory requirements. Now, with the State Administration of Work Safety continuously issuing various regulations, things have become even more chaotic.
In most cases, building factories or carrying out projects in accordance with standards makes it easier to achieve true intrinsic safety. However, some experts set the standards too high in order to avoid taking responsibility; as a result, construction costs increase significantly when following those standards, which is why the problems mentioned by the original poster arise. Personally, I try to stick to the standards, especially regarding the principle of \"two key points and one major issue\". **Regulations will only become stricter; as for everything else, it depends on the actual circumstances – if it’s not mandatory, then it’s better to save costs. :lol