Regarding the issue of quoting design data in environmental assessment

People who do feasibility studies and environmental impact assessments know everything but are not good at anything. However, it is very difficult for people doing feasibility studies to calculate the amount of wastewater and waste gas very accurately (quantitatively), and that is not within the scope of their work. However, the data in the feasibility study and the data in the environmental impact assessment must be consistent. The amount of waste gas and waste water used in environmental impact assessments are all calculated based on material balance and process flow, but the amounts sometimes have large errors. To quote a member of the chemical industry, "As an environmental impact assessment person, it is actually very difficult to understand the specific current situation of each chemical company. Each process that has been running for many years is very different in theory. Therefore, when you use your own survey data to calculate materials and energy, there will be big deviations." sometimes i am thinking: After the proposed factory begins normal operation, how far will the actual monitored data on wastewater, waste gas, solid waste, etc. differ from the data written in the environmental impact assessment report? But those of us who do environmental impact assessments just make a report and submit it for approval and then ignore it. In fact, I really want to know how far the error calculated in our environmental impact assessment report was from the actual one. And for the predictions we usually make, how far is the distance between actual monitoring and theoretical monitoring? I really don't know about these issues. In the environmental impact assessment, there is a standard pollution load calculation, which is to calculate which factory around the proposed project site has the most serious pollution emissions. But in fact, we don’t know the pollution discharge situation of the surrounding factories at all. We generally only know one or two, so it is impossible to investigate. The manufacturers don’t like to deal with us and are wary. So in many cases there is a "compilation", and usually the result of the compilation is that the pollution of other plants is more serious or similar to that of the plant to be built. I have done too much environmental impact assessment and written too many articles on data. It seems that all the work is for the smooth passage of the environmental assessment review meeting. But I feel that "environmental impact assessment" is not a "complete" formality, and it is still somewhat useful. It's just that it's a bit difficult to get all the data accurately. It requires not only theory but also practice, and it also requires the cooperation of friends in the chemical industry. (That’s all my personal opinion) This post was last edited by Welcome on 2009-4-1 08:20 ]

The 2nd floor expressed my feelings. Now when the environmental assessment is being reviewed, if you ask the questions raised by experts after the meeting, they will frankly say that they don’t know how to solve them. The root cause is that our environmental assessment system carries too much content. In fact, impossible tasks are also included in the environmental assessment. Of course, there are a lot of data without basis. Many front-line environmental impact assessment people suggest that post-environmental impact assessment should be carried out. Only after the factory is put into operation can we have accurate data and then evaluate again, which will have real guiding significance.

I am referring to the initial dosage. For example, to produce a meal of products, the proportion of water and wastewater must be calculated by yourself. But if the initial water use experts have doubts, the various wastes must be doubtful, because they are all calculated from this balance. The problem is that the initial environmental impact assessment personnel should not have the ability to design

If it weren't for professionals to come up with another set of data, doubts would probably be louder.

There are very few people who can do environmental impact assessment at the preliminary design stage, but when doing environmental impact assessment, it is often about whether something is there or not. Most of the current feasibility studies are project declarations, and many of them are no longer technical and accurate.

Personally, I feel that the reliability of the design data should be analyzed based on the data provided by the design information provider and by analogy with the data of relevant companies. If there is a large discrepancy, you can have an in-depth discussion with the design unit to find out the reasons. You know the data that comes out in this way. When the review expert raises an objection, he can explain it clearly based on your understanding of the situation and the specific reasons. I think the expert only raises an objection, and he does not have exact data. After your explanation, he thinks that you have deeply analyzed and understood the emission of these pollutants, and it is relatively easy to agree with your data. This is what I do when I make an evaluation. I hope it is useful to you, and I also want to learn better methods from experts here.

The problem is that you can’t explain some of the issues. Some time ago, I went to a review meeting with someone from the mining industry. Experts went to the site to see it, but they didn’t say anything at the time. But during the meeting, they said that based on what they saw on site, the water inflow from the mine should be greater than designed. If so, there is a problem with the water balance, and the Environmental Protection Agency rejected the project. The problem is that no one can explain the water inflow clearly. It’s strange that those doing environmental impact assessments can know how much it is. In fact, there is no way to explain many situations. The owner said that this product of mine only needs to be matched with so many. Experts said that other products do not have so many, and the products have not been produced yet. Who is listening to? No one can afford to offend:lol :lol. In fact, I have heard and seen many situations, and the experts are better. The hbj people don't listen to your explanation at all. He always thinks that he is right. It's okay if you don't explain. Once you explain, you are just waiting to be scolded. Why don't you look at the scene carefully? What are you making up? Many bosses have neither professional knowledge nor understanding of the actual situation, but they think it is what it is. Oh, it seems to be a little off topic later. The problem is that I really don't know how to write when encountering this kind of situation. Hehe, at this time I remembered a sentence I saw, the three major hardships in life: Environmental impact assessment, blacksmithing, buying tofu

I deeply agree with what my friends said above.: We also encountered many situations when we were working on the bisglyphosate project. I was asked to find a comparable factory, but they insisted that the data I provided was false and could not be believed. However, it was difficult for me to find a comparable factory because of its conditions. Finally, I went to another manufacturer to get an environmental impact assessment and acceptance report, and after looking at the test data, he had an idea. They told me frankly that they felt unsure if they had never done this kind of project. I once said that it was useless to do engineering analysis from the perspective of environmental impact assessment and put forward opinions, and the design institute would consider them when making construction drawings. From last year to this year, from June 1st onwards, it was said that the environmental impact assessment must be done according to the new atmospheric guidelines, which will also increase a lot of costs. The trouble is that there is no high-altitude atmospheric data in my area. I really don’t know when the environmental impact assessment will be completed and passed. It is difficult to do chemical engineering projects now.