Just attended the seminar on GB50160-2008 \"Code for Fire Protection Design of Petrochemical Enterprises\"
Thread Content
1. Views on the seminar ① To be honest, this seminar was purely aimed at making money; it lasted 2 days, with 4 experts giving 4 lectures each. But only one expert was actually involved in the preparation of the new petrochemical regulations (to be honest, the insights provided by this expert were truly useful; that was the biggest gain from the entire seminar). However, due to time constraints, many topics could only be touched on briefly, and some were not discussed at all. Moreover, this expert refused to share even the slightly more useful materials ； Another person was involved in the development of the 1999 version; the things they said are somewhat useful for reference as well, and they provided some ideas regarding the standards’ formulation. As for what was discussed on the first day, it was clearly just fooling around. The first person in question was someone from the safety and environmental department of a large domestic petrochemical company; he wasn’t familiar with the new rules. Out of 10 questions asked, it would already be quite good if he could answer just one. He kept bringing up examples from his own company, but then claimed that his superiors had ordered that such information not be shared outside the company (who would care about such trivial matters when you’re here to make extra money on weekends? It’s pure nonsense – he was probably afraid that his superiors would find out he wasn’t doing his job properly). To be polite, one could simply admit that they don’t understand something, but instead they insist on pretending to understand, interpreting the rules incorrectly and spouting nonsense, which only leads to misunderstandings rather than any real learning. In fact, there were people who, even after three years of working in this field, were still using GBJ16! The second person to come up was a leader from the fire department; he seemed honest at first, saying it was his first time encountering petrochemical regulations Isn’t this a fainting spell? How can one explain this to someone for the first time? You should know that many of the experts sitting below have spent years in the design industry until their hair turned gray. So what he told people were things related to his experience in firefighting work, and at the end, under the pretext of confidentiality, he refused to provide any information on those cases that we were truly interested in. The meeting fee is 880; aside from the classes, there’s nothing else – it’s just a way to make money! ②Accommodation is arranged during the conference, but the cost of accommodation is separate; it’s 260 per night. The hotel isn’t even considered 3-star, and the price is clearly too high. ③After the seminar, those who have come from outside can sign up for 2-day or 3-day tours of the surrounding tourist attractions, but the prices are significantly high – it’s simply overpriced! Given the above circumstances, it is recommended that everyone ask for clear information before attending such meetings and then decide whether to go or not! 2. Personal views on the 2008 version of the petrochemical regulations: In my opinion, the new version of these regulations has seen significant changes. Those who work with them regularly need to study them carefully; not only have some terms changed, but the order of certain elements has also changed, and there are substantial alterations in quantitative specifications such as distances and quantities – all of which require careful consideration. ①The new version of the petrochemical regulations, just like the building codes, has mandatory provisions (in bold) and non-mandatory provisions (not in bold) ； ②Many of the provisions in the new petrochemical regulations are more specific, resulting in fewer differences in names ； ③The new version of the petrochemical regulations includes, in a targeted manner, many elements from other standards such as building codes ； ④The new version of the petrochemical regulations sets stricter requirements for safety distances, with more detailed classifications ； ⑤The new version of the petrochemical regulations provides specific explanations for certain proprietary terms and words that may give rise to discrepancies, thereby preventing misunderstandings ； …… Furthermore, the new version of the petrochemical regulations also contains some aspects that are difficult to understand. To give two examples: ① The 1999 version of the petrochemical regulations stipulated that petrochemical enterprises should follow the provisions of these regulations for fire protection design, and only in cases where no such provisions exist should other regulations be referred to (which must comply with the requirements or specifications of relevant current **standards) ； However, the new version of the petrochemical regulations states that in addition to complying with these regulations, the fire protection design of petrochemical enterprises must also meet the requirements of **current relevant standards. This point gives the impression that the utility of this standard has **decreased**. It also presents people with difficult choices, as what used to be sufficient under certain regulations for a device may now require compliance with other standards as well, thereby **increasing the workload** invisibly! ②The new petrochemical regulations increase the safe distance between factory walls and various plants and equipment from 6–10 meters to 25–40 meters, a significant increase. As a result, the land area required for a refinery with an annual processing capacity of 10 million tons increases by 60–90 mu. Moreover, this additional land cannot be used for any construction; at an average cost of 200,000 yuan per mu, it means an extra investment of 10–20 million yuan is needed just to acquire such empty land. This not only fails to conform to the principles of conservation that we advocate today, but it also does not comply with **the current principles for land use. It’s unclear how the standards-formulating team came to such a decision! There are still many things I don’t understand, which I won’t list all here; I hope everyone can offer some suggestions!
This is the real situation in most seminars and training courses! So when attending such conferences and training sessions, don’t set your expectations too high. Whether one can learn something depends mainly on oneself!
There should be a formally published written version of the guidelines for the meeting; please scan it and share it!
With training and learning these days, it’s generally like this: whether one can really learn something depends mainly on oneself. But everyone still gains something from it, which is the opportunity to meet more people.
Maybe the poster is too tall. Generally speaking, these kinds of seminars are quite good.
Thank you to the original poster for providing the information. Is there a newer version of the standard?
Those who formulated the \"Code for Fire Protection Design of Petrochemical Enterprises\" simply copied foreign standards and adjusted the corresponding distances by increasing or decreasing them, without ever calculating how those distances were determined
We are often involved in the construction of petrochemical projects. Many fire protection designers in petrochemical companies are not very familiar with the relevant regulations; during on-site briefings, they can only state that the fire separation distance should be several meters, but they don’t know how to determine where to start calculating it. However, what the original poster mentioned about training sessions and meetings is true; we also attend such training sessions frequently. Some of the presentations are so confusing that it’s impossible to understand what is being said, so it’s better to just read books by oneself. Most of these training programs are organized to make money; it costs a few hundred yuan per person, and with accommodation and meals added in, the total cost is at least two thousand yuan. With one or two hundred people participating in each session, and several such sessions held back to back, quite a lot of money can be made.
This standard has also been under close attention recently. . I took a first look at the manuscript for review. There are many aspects for which the requirements are much stricter than before.
Another point is that many of the current regulations indeed leave us at a loss when it comes to design. There are also many regulatory aspects; for the same requirement, two different approaches can actually be found in two different regulations. This is very common in the oil and chemical industries. As for seminars, what seems most strange to me now is that many of these briefing meetings, which were originally meant to explain to everyone how things could be done better, have now become a tool for various parties to use; when it comes to critical moments, they become vague and ambiguous. No wonder our **technology level can’t improve. Sometimes, I think even Guo Degang is more down-to-earth than all those experts of ours.
Our company purchased the 2008 version of the petrochemical regulations last year
The original poster is really impressive – such events are generally not accessible to ordinary people, and small organizations are unwilling to incur such unnecessary expenses; they usually don’t send anyone to attend. Larger organizations send 1 or 2 people to participate, and those people are expected to convey what they learned back after returning. Doesn’t the original poster have this task? As for the arrangement of meetings, this is a characteristic of China; there’s no need to be surprised. Those so-called experts who are not competent are simply using their connections to gain some benefits. However, it is very difficult to establish a standard, let alone such an important standard that relates to security and involves many aspects. I remember that when this new standard was being developed, two senior engineers from our company (in process engineering and general layout) attended the meetings seven or eight times in total, and it took several years to finalize it. Actually, it also took a few years for this revision; I have here an approval draft from version 06. As for the changes made, they should be quite deliberate; for example, the safe distance between walls and various installations and equipment has been increased from 6–10 meters to 25–40 meters. This decision is based on past incidents and other factors, so there is a rationale behind it, and land resources are not wasted needlessly. This specification requires implementation starting from July 1, 2009. I wonder if it’s available in regular bookstores?
The new standards are certainly useful for reference, but I haven’t seen them yet. Could you provide them?
The regulations should require companies to adopt advanced security technologies in order to reduce the requirements regarding safety distances; **we already have a severe shortage of land. According to our company’s CEO (who often visits well-known chemical companies in Europe and the United States for inspections and negotiations), the safety distances abroad are not as large as ours. So perhaps we should learn from foreign safety management practices and technologies! This post was last edited by gdcool on 2009-3-31 16:24.]
Don’t expect any major gains from such seminars; a little surprise is enough.
It’s really realistic. What I felt after reading it is that one still has to rely on themselves to learn*
Is there a formal electronic version? Often, by the time a standard is established and has been in use for a long time, the official text still hasn’t been released – so how are those working at the grassroots level supposed to implement it?
I completely agree. Including the 81 AQ standards that came into effect on January 1 this year, less than half of them seem to be in their official form at present; it is very difficult to implement them. Even the case-handling departments at the municipal level do not have these standards, which puts safety management work in a vulnerable position.
Is it the Shenzhen flight from 3.20 to 3.22? Our unit has also received a notice, but the management refused to approve it because the location is too far away. It was said recently that there are still flights to Xining and Shanghai, and the designers are trying to get on them. In any case, it’s good to take a look and gather some information.
After reviewing the manuscript, I feel it’s not entirely clear how to distinguish between chemical enterprises and petrochemical enterprises
Salute to the original poster! These days, there are many fake experts; few scholars with genuine research capabilities, and even fewer who can solve practical problems! I still haven’t been able to get my hands on the new version of the \"Code for Fire Protection Design of Petrochemical Enterprises\"; it’s about to be implemented yet it’s not available for purchase. I really don’t understand how some of today’s management officials think. I guess I just want to use that new big stick to deal with 5 and 6 in the future. . .