Must the contents of the pre-assessment be implemented in the design?
Thread Content
Currently, we are carrying out the preliminary safety assessment for a project, and the safety assessment specialists have copied a large number of requirements from various documents. Most of these requirements are general guidelines, and implementing them proves to be quite difficult. For example, fixed sprinkler systems must be installed on the tops of tanks used to store Class BA hazardous materials; this makes it challenging to carry out frequent operations related to receiving and packaging such materials. There are also some issues regarding which are difficult to discuss with them. What concerns us is whether all the requirements outlined in the preliminary safety assessment need to be incorporated into the design, and whether, during the safety assessments conducted after production begins, all the points specified in the preliminary assessment must be fulfilled – otherwise, approval will not be granted. Is that the case? How should we respond to this? Thank you!
The so-called preliminary assessment involves the company analyzing the potential occupational hazards that may arise during the construction of a project, as well as after it is completed, based on the information provided by your organization. It then offers recommendations for taking measures to control these hazards during the construction process. If you do not construct in accordance with the requirements outlined in the preliminary evaluation, the evaluation company will not issue an evaluation report upon completion. Therefore, an overprint is recommended; if there are indeed difficulties, you can communicate with the evaluation company to see if alternative measures can be taken to find a solution.
We are also working on a project. Could the original poster tell me all the materials required for the preliminary evaluation (the list of documents to be provided to the evaluation company)? It’s urgent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You don’t need to rush here; the evaluation company will provide you with a list, and you just need to submit the relevant documents according to that list! Of course, it is best to refer to the relevant provisions in the \"Guidelines for Safety Pre-assessment AQ8002-2007\": Appendix B (Informative Appendix) – Reference materials to be obtained for safety assessment. B1 Comprehensive materials: B1.1 General information; B1.1 Overall layout plans, industrial park planning maps; B1.3 Meteorological conditions, maps showing the relationship with the surrounding environment; B1.4 Process flow; B1.5 Staff distribution. B2 Basis for establishment: B2.1 Project application forms, approval documents for project initiation; B2.2 Geological and hydrological data; B2.3 Other relevant materials. B3 Facilities, equipment, and installations: B3.1 Description and explanation of the process, details of the industrial park planning, and description of the operational processes. B3.2 Description and instructions for safety facilities, equipment, and devices. B4 Establishment of safety management organizations and staffing B5 Investment in safety B6 Relevant laws, regulations, and standards for work safety B7 Related comparative materials B7.1 Data from similar projects B7.2 Relevant accident cases B8 Other materials that can be used for safety pre-assessment
Regarding the issues raised in the safety pre-assessment mentioned by the original poster, you definitely need to communicate with the assessment company to find some alternative solutions. If you ignore the issues raised in the preliminary assessment, it will certainly have a negative impact on the safety assessment conducted after the project is completed; with too many non-compliances, the conclusion will be different!
It was previously called pre-safety assessment; now it should be called safety assessment upon establishment. Before project design, a safety assessment is conducted; once this assessment is completed, the design of safety facilities takes place, followed by an inspection of those facilities. Finally, a safety acceptance assessment is carried out. Reference can be made to Order No. {2006}8 issued by the State Administration of Work Safety
Regarding the issues raised in the preliminary evaluation, in my experience, I address those that are reasonable and solvable. As for those that are truly difficult to resolve but which the safety assessment company insists on dealing with, I either ask for help or pay the person in charge of the evaluation to handle them. No matter how well you resolve something, if it isn’t properly taken care of, someone will still point out problems.
Not everything included in the safety pre-assessment must be adopted in the design! ! !
I work in safety assessment. To be honest, sometimes I feel that my job is rather meaningless; it seems like it’s just a formality. On the one hand, we are not professional enough, and there is a huge gap between what we know and reality ； On the other hand, companies probably find it too troublesome to make the necessary adjustments. This is the conflict between ideals and reality, I suppose. :(
What the original poster mentioned – that fixed sprinkler systems should be installed on the tops of finished tanks containing Class B hazardous materials – is a requirement for fixed-roof storage tanks of Classes A and B; it’s not clear what the trouble might be. The installation of fixed sprinkler systems does not mean that water spraying must take place whenever the tank is in operation. Instead, they serve as a necessary facility for cooling down during summer, as well as to prevent the spread of accidents in case of a fire in adjacent tanks. What the safety assessment company said is correct; it is the poster who has a misunderstanding of the regulations. **The design fire protection regulations issued are based on summaries of past accidents and foreign standards. To enhance the intrinsic safety of the project, it is recommended that the poster communicate with the assessment agency to gain a better understanding of these regulations and adopt, as much as possible, the countermeasures suggested by the safety assessment company.**
Not all the contents of the safety pre-assessment need to be adopted in the design; the dedicated safety design section can decide whether to accept or reject the recommendations from the pre-assessment (with reasons provided). However, the content in the safety design section must be adopted; otherwise, design changes will be required. Otherwise, it will be very troublesome to conduct the acceptance evaluation.
The 11th floor is the correct answer, but laws and regulations clearly require it to be done
Pre-evaluation and establishment evaluation are both in use at present; establishment evaluation is used for hazardous chemical projects, while pre-evaluation is used for others. Both types of evaluation results and requirements must be complied with; they serve as important bases for the acceptance evaluation. If not followed, an explanation must be provided during the acceptance process.
Not all of the safety countermeasures proposed in the preliminary evaluation should be adopted in the design. In the special section on safety design, the safety design department may choose not to adopt the contents of the preliminary evaluation if there are valid reasons for doing so. Or other safety devices can be used as a substitute.
I think what was said on the 11th floor is quite clear; I agree. In other words, if the safety pre-assessment for a construction project is well-targeted, the practicality of the safety measures proposed is relatively high. However, such pre-assessments may also set requirements that exceed current standards; therefore, when carrying out design work and designing safety facilities, companies should communicate promptly with the design firms and assessment agencies, striving to reduce costs while still complying with existing laws, regulations, standards, and guidelines. Of course, the evaluation of safety facility design also takes into account expert opinions. Once the design review for the safety facilities is approved, making changes to the design becomes more complicated, as relevant certification documents are required for approval.
If the evaluation report is not in final form, it is possible to discuss this with the evaluators. If it is already finalized and implementation is truly not feasible, an explanation can be provided, and confirmation from the experts will suffice
First, let’s discuss a term that is referred to as a preliminary assessment in the AQ standards; however, in administrative licensing by the relevant departments, it is no longer called a preliminary assessment but rather an establishment assessment. It is an undeniable fact that the countermeasures proposed for evaluation are generally stated in a rather general manner, and design institutes also consider them to be of little help in the design process. Given the current state of evaluation, for such countermeasures to be effective and appropriate to the actual conditions of a particular project, it is necessary to follow the basic principles regarding countermeasures in safety evaluations – namely, they must be targeted; there is no need to set excessively high standards, and they must also be economically reasonable. To propose targeted and cost-effective countermeasures, it is first necessary to conduct in-depth research on relevant standards, especially technical standards; experience with identical or similar devices can also be utilized as a reference. As for concerns regarding rejection during expert review, such reviews must also adhere to standards and regulations. As long as one has confidence and sufficient reasons, the different opinions expressed by experts can still be revised and discussed. Safety assessment is a technical discipline that requires an approach based on facts and scientific fairness. These are the naive opinions of a fool; for reference only.