The issue of the timing for interlocked resection

Interlocking is mainly designed for production safety. I don’t understand what is meant by the question regarding the time limit for further resection. Strictly speaking, if the interlock fails due to problems occurring within the time limit,,, Who is responsible for this artificially set time limit? In the case of online maintenance, it is also necessary to notify the relevant personnel for confirmation before signing the maintenance task order. The question might have been misunderstood; this is for reference only.

This has nothing to do with **standards. It mainly depends on the reason for disabling the interlock; for example, in the intermittent production process of fine chemicals, or during equipment maintenance, etc. Once the equipment resumes normal operation, the interlock must be reactivated.

Moreover, for companies, both interlocked removal and activation require procedures and signatures

I’ve encountered this problem before as well; first, it requires approval from professional supervisors, and changes are also needed – there are too many procedures and it’s too complicated

FYR: 1. The interlock management regulations for the \"Big Three Oil Companies\" generally involve either short-term or long-term lifting of such interlocks, with some definitions specifying that the long-term period does not exceed 6 months. 2. As accidents in chemical enterprises occur frequently, and SIS is an important layer among the seven protection layers of LOPA, **there are also more stringent requirements regarding the disabling and reactivating of SIS interlocks. For example: Safety Supervision General Office Document No. 3 [2015] 113 – Key Guidelines for Safety Inspections of Chemical (hazardous chemicals) enterprises: The safety supervision authorities, during their inspections, consider that it violates safety requirements if the interlock system is disabled for more than a month. 3. I believe the actual purpose of doing this is, first, to ensure the prompt restoration of interlocking functions; whether it is for preventive maintenance or to re-enable interlocking after a equipment failure has been repaired, the goal is always to keep the equipment in good condition and the system in a protected state ； II. There are indeed cases where the interlock that has been disabled cannot be restored within one month (such as when there is a fault with the compressor’s sensors and repair or replacement is required). In such situations, it is necessary to issue a new request to disable the interlock; this involves re-evaluating the actual situation and associated risks, as well as updating the emergency response plans, in order to prevent those plans from becoming ineffective should circumstances change ； Remind the relevant personnel that there are still interlocks that have not been put into use, and they should be managed as potential hazards. The position also requires studying relevant materials to understand the principles of emergency shutdown and the emergency response procedures.