Do all projects built before 2009 have major hidden dangers? ?
Thread Content
According to the criteria for identifying major potential hazards in production safety for chemical and hazardous chemicals manufacturing and operating units: 13. The side of the control room or cabinet room that faces devices with fire and explosion risks does not meet the fire and explosion prevention requirements specified in the **standards. The main purpose of this provision is to require enterprises to implement safety protection measures against fire and explosion in important facilities such as control rooms and cabinet rooms, so as to effectively safeguard the lives of personnel working in these control rooms, as well as the safety of important automatic control systems and equipment within them in the event of fires or explosions. The relevant **standards include the Code for Fire Protection Design of Petrochemical Industries (GB50160-2008) and the Code for Fire Protection Design of Buildings (GB50016-2014). Control rooms or cabinet rooms in chemical and hazardous chemical enterprises that are at risk of fire and explosion must meet the following requirements: The safety distance on the side facing devices prone to fire and explosion should comply with the fire protection distance requirements specified in standards such as Table 4.2.12 of the \"Code for Fire Protection Design of Petrochemical Industries\" (GB50160-2008); furthermore, the building structure of these control rooms and cabinet rooms must meet the blast resistance requirements set out in Article 4.4.1 of the \"Code for Design of Petrochemical Control Rooms\" (SH/T3006-2012) ； So the question is, what about the projects that were constructed before July 1, 2009, when GB50160-2008 came into effect? The 1999 version of the petrochemical regulations does not contain the requirements outlined in the 2008 version; are all projects constructed before 2009 considered to pose serious hazards?
Potential. The requirements of certain foreign patent holders have long been higher than the original national and industry standards. For example, in projects with codes 04 and 05, the control room is required to have a fortress-style design, and the exterior walls must be explosion-proof (capable of withstanding 4 PSI shock waves; the figures may not be accurate as I’ve forgotten over time)
Hehehe, our project requires that the control room be able to withstand an impact pressure of 4 psi – it’s basically a full-scale bunker. Traditionally, as long as all the necessary procedures were followed, it was considered legal; but the safety regulatory authority now requires companies to carry out safety diagnosis studies and implement technical upgrades in order to meet existing safety standards as much as possible.
In other words, it is reasonable for safety supervision to require corrections if the previous design or current situation do not meet the requirements?
It mainly depends on your risk tolerance, both social and personal. Change is inevitable; it’s just that the time required varies. The incidents in Yibin this time and in Lianyungang last time may accelerate the process of restructuring existing chemical enterprises, including those in the pharmaceutical and fine chemicals sectors. If it’s not possible to make changes to the building structure, then other control measures will be required, with the goal of bringing the safety level down to an acceptable level.
No, it’s not that~ It’s just that since it involves key hazardous chemical processes and the reaction intermediates are energy-storing substances, foreigners are, after all, cautious and conservative in their approach. So the request made is quite...