Some discussions about the control room?
Thread Content
1. In accordance with GB 50160-2008 5.7.1A, the central control room shall determine whether blast resistance design is required based on the explosion risk assessment. The precision standards do not specify any requirements in this regard ； 2. HG/T 20508-2014 Control Room Design Code is a standard for the chemical industry; clause 3.2.1, item 1 states that the control room should be located within the plant or complex, and outside of areas prone to explosion ； The central control room should be located in the production management area ； This is in conflict with Section 5.2.17 of the petrochemical regulations, which states that the control rooms of such facilities should be located outside the facility itself, and that they should be arranged in a unified manner on a plant-wide or regional basis. 3.HG/T 20508-2014 3.4.1 For chemical plants with explosion hazards, the buildings and structures in the central control room shall be designed based on the calculation and analysis results regarding their blast resistance. 3.4.2 For chemical plants with explosion hazards, the control rooms and field control rooms shall be designed with explosion-resistant structures. 3.4.3 When the control room building is of blast-resistant design, it shall not be constructed together with non-blast-resistant buildings. This project is clearly designed in accordance with precise specifications. As I understand it, if there are no requirements specified in the precision standards, then there is no need to follow the petrochemical standards. In reality, as far as I know, many old factory control rooms were located in office buildings. In my understanding, offices are classified as category one important facilities for the entire plant; control rooms are also considered category one important facilities for the whole plant, while power centers are classified as category two important facilities. There is no problem at all in placing these three types of facilities together from a safety perspective, but it does present challenges from an administrative standpoint. If the control room is located in an office building, can it be treated not as a control room, but rather as a control center for example, in order to avoid such classification? I think HG/T 20508-2014 is suitable for large-scale chemical industries and refining operations; it’s completely unnecessary for the fine chemical industry, considering its nature. A chemical engineering design institute insists on having control rooms for fine chemical projects built separately in accordance with HG/T20508-2014 standards, and these control rooms must also be designed to be explosion-proof; they cannot be constructed together with the power plant and the administrative building. Is this creating unnecessary difficulties? How should one approach this situation? What I also can’t understand is why the petrochemical control room (a category II critical facility) needs to be blast-resistant, while office buildings with many people inside (category I critical facilities) do not need such protection. What is the reasoning behind this? The distance between Category I critical facilities and Category II critical facilities is only 5 meters.
Be strict. Now companies don’t have a say in this; various pseudo-experts who are not well-versed in the regulations impose strict requirements
If the standards are strict, the project can’t proceed. Precision regulation was originally intended to give some companies a way to survive, but now it has turned out like this.
First, clarify two points: whether a risk assessment of reactions has been conducted, and whether a risk assessment of explosions has been carried out； It makes sense for design institutes to adopt blast-resistant design; it is likely that, after a blast risk assessment, there is a risk of explosion wave impacts on the control room.
Not everyone is willing to leave a way out for others. During the construction phase, strict standards should be applied as much as possible; when conducting inspections, relevant criteria should be found to allow for more lenient treatment in order to obtain approval
It is recommended to observe more and travel more, and look for similar model enterprises for comparison. Communicate with and seek advice from the local safety supervision authorities. Design institutes engage in such tactics to maximize their profits, especially in the case of design-and-construction turnkey contracts. For reference.
The poster is likely the owner of the project; please carefully review clause 1.0.3 of the Control Room Design Specification HG20508-2014, which outlines the scope of application of this specification. If you don’t want to use an explosion-proof control room, that’s fine; the regulations provide relevant provisions, such as 3.4.1/2 and the explanatory notes for these clauses. You can hire a professional agency to carry out explosion-proof calculations, thereby proving that the requirements can be met without the need for an explosion-proof structure – it’s not complicated at all. The design institute definitely follows the standards and designs in accordance with them. Standards need to be considered as a whole, rather than just focusing on one or two of them.
1. According to Document No. 3 issued by the National Safety Commission, the three-year implementation plan for the special rectification of hazardous chemicals safety requires that all entities, whether in the fine chemicals sector or the petrochemical industry, must comply with this rectification plan whenever dealing with hazardous chemicals. 2. The design institute is not at fault; it carried out the design in accordance with regulations, after all, the person who designs is responsible for it.
If no reaction is involved, just mix them. No explosion hazard assessment was conducted; Category B A. It is required by the petrochemical regulations, but not by the detailed regulations; therefore it has not been carried out.
Is it the notice regarding the issuance of the \"Three-Year Action Plan for National Special Campaigns on Work Safety\", Anwei (2020) No. 3? I didn’t see any content regarding spacing
I used to work in design; I’m just bringing this up for discussion. According to the petrochemical regulations, the blast resistance of control rooms must be determined based on explosion risk assessments, but such requirements aren’t specified in the detailed regulations； I think the control room can definitely be located in an office building, which is itself outside the explosion hazard zone. Both are considered important facilities under the petrochemical regulations. Strangely enough, while both are classified as such important facilities under these regulations, the control room is required to meet explosion resistance standards, but the office building does not need to?