Regarding the special section on safety facility design prepared in accordance with the latest guideline requirements

I would like to share some of my personal views first. I think the new guidelines have expanded the section on the hazardous and harmful factors as well as their degree of risk in construction project design; several items focus on analysis. In my opinion, the dedicated section on safety facility design should emphasize the measures that have been taken. It’s not that analysis isn’t needed – the design of safety measures is indeed based on analysis – but what should be highlighted in this section are the measures taken. Too many analysis elements give the impression that this report is not a dedicated section but rather an evaluation. I hope experts can offer their valuable opinions on this

Indeed, the evaluation states that the odor is quite strong, and it’s also difficult to prepare a report on safety considerations; it seems like much of the content is repetitive: lol. This post was last edited by limingshuguang on 2007-12-13 at 10:48

I have also been studying the new guidelines issued by *An. These guidelines focus on accidents involving hazardous chemicals such as fires, explosions, poisonings, and burns; not only qualitative analysis is required, but quantitative calculations of the consequences of such accidents are also necessary (something that is not often seen in some evaluation reports). Regarding countermeasures, the new guidelines consist of just four short lines, but the requirements are very specific. For example, if you install a safety valve somewhere, you need to specify exactly where it is located, as well as its model and specifications. You also need to explain why you chose that particular safety valve. In short, requirements regarding safety equipment must be specific; they cannot be handled carelessly. Requiring a budget estimate rather than an approximate figure for safety investment makes it difficult to prepare a separate section on safety for small projects that do not undergo preliminary design. Process safety analysis has been added in terms of processes; generally, the HAZOP method is used for such analysis, although it presents certain difficulties in application. Furthermore, the depth of the specialized sections has increased, and as a result, the responsibilities of those who carry out the design work have become greater as well. Failing to take any detail into consideration can lead to problems; even if a detail is taken into account but the approach used in the design is incorrect, the responsibility will be even greater. Regarding the justification of safety conditions, some experts say that the condition certification report mentioned in Document No. 8 is merely part of the submitted materials and is not subject to evaluation; therefore, including it in the design document this time serves to clarify responsibilities and ensure further scrutiny. As for the idea of treating it as an evaluation, I’m not quite in agreement with that. If your safety measures are expressed in terms of general principles or by stating that certain standards should be followed, then indeed it can be regarded as an evaluation. But when you detail all the safety facilities and measures, then what you have is actually a design document.

Thank you to CBA and Hansfei for their active participation. It was very inspiring for me, but I feel that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to work on the sections related to safety facility design – the timeline gets longer, the challenges increase, and especially the experts involved in the review are becoming more experienced. Some of these experts point out certain issues and provide written feedback using vague phrases such as “further refine the relevant aspects...” or “add more details to the ***** design.” You then have to think about making the necessary changes; otherwise, your work might not be approved and you’ll have to start over. It’s not that there are major principles-related issues in dedicated articles; many factors come into play! In short, it seems increasingly difficult to do this; I think it’s better to do as little as possible, or avoid doing these things that involve cleaning up after the client

Literally, the new guidelines focus on accidents involving hazardous chemicals such as fires, explosions, poisonings, and burns, which has also left designers confused. The special section on safety facility design is part of the process of constructing safety facilities in accordance with the principle of simultaneous implementation alongside other related activities, following a preliminary safety assessment. It repeats the analysis of hazardous and harmful factors as well as the assessment of the severity of potential accidents, which may overshadow the actual content of the design itself. From my experience reviewing special reports on safety design, there are roughly two types of approaches to writing such reports. One type follows the conventions of the **industrial complexes under the former Ministry of Chemical Industry: these reports are structured into two chapters – one on labor safety and occupational health, and another on fire protection – and they include both descriptive text and design diagrams, offering relatively comprehensive content ； Another type is represented by Class B and Class C design institutes affiliated to various provinces and cities; these institutions devote a large amount of space to analyzing hazards and risk factors (many of which are copied from safety pre-assessment reports) in order to meet regulatory requirements, with very little actual content related to the design of safety facilities, and there is also a certain gap between this approach and the requirements of the new guidelines. Design should return to its essence; conducting risk analysis is of little use. The true intention of those who formulated the new guidelines may not have been to have designers carry out safety assessments, as there are specialized roles for specific tasks. Designers bear a great responsibility and workload for creating good designs; delivering high-quality designs is part of their core job. Given that the special chapter on safety facility design is a new topic, further exploration is needed in practice in order to achieve the set goals. The General Administration has set a one-year trial period to allow for further revisions. This post was last edited by Wanjinyou on 2007-12-14 09:24.]

From the manager’s perspective, the safety pre-assessment is used to guide the safety design aspects in the preliminary design; therefore, it makes sense not to repeat the contents of the pre-assessment when preparing the safety section of the preliminary design. Such as analysis of hazardous factors, assessment of the safety conditions of the plant site, accident risk analysis, and so on. But now everyone knows that there are several evaluation companies capable of developing guidelines to assist design institutes in their safety design. If everyone installs things in accordance with the safety measures outlined in the preliminary assessment, the consequences are predictable. Since pre-evaluation isn’t of high quality, tasks that require expertise still have to be handled by design institutes; this guiding principle of the new guidelines is also a reflection of the current low standard of pre-evaluation. I’m not sure if thinking this way is correct. On the other hand, targeted risk analysis is the foundation for proper design of safety facilities; designing without taking into account the risks specific to a particular project renders such design meaningless.

Could the experts provide a formal version of the special report mentioned by the person on the sixth floor – the one related to the compound formerly under the Ministry of Chemical Industry? We would like to share it with our small design firm. Thank you in advance:handshake :handshake

The purpose of a preliminary safety assessment is to serve as a basis for the subsequent design of safety facilities; without this requirement, the meaning of a preliminary assessment is lost. Doing a good job in safety assessment is the goal that our assessors strive for. Some evaluation agencies can do it; if no one can do it, how far can evaluation go?

Many of the guidelines and the new safety assessments overlap

I want to see what the safety section in the newly formulated guidelines looks like