Compatibility issues between AQ standards and other standards

This issue is very important; especially the previous regulations set by the Ministry of Labor were quite troublesome.

There is no conflict; the AQ standards are industry standards. Where the standards provide specific regulations, those regulations shall be followed; where the standards do not provide such regulations, the AQ standards apply. In cases where there is a conflict between the LD standards and the AQ standards, the AQ standards take precedence. Departmental regulations and standards are two distinct things and cannot be treated as the same. Just as laws or regulations stipulate requirements for safe production, it is necessary to comply with the relevant provisions of the standards, as standards represent the concrete manifestations of laws, regulations, and rules.

In my opinion, safety markings should be considered part of the \"comprehensive\" industry standards; they should not conflict with **regulations and standards, but rather serve to further detail the relevant provisions. As required, industry standards shall be followed, provided that this does not violate **laws, regulations, and standards**. The above are merely personal opinions!

Different departments may establish different standards based on their own interests; it is recommended to follow the new standards. Perhaps after some time, the State Administration of Work Safety will establish more AQ standards; once things are fully streamlined, many problems will naturally be resolved.

The AQ standards cannot replace national standards, and the AQ standards themselves state that other standards must also be complied with. Moreover, after reviewing several AQ standards, I found that they are very simple and general in nature, with poor practicality; therefore, they can only serve as a supplement.

When will the safety standards be raised to an appropriate level? Things would be much easier if that happened. The problem is that the current safety standards are contradictory to those set by the former safety supervision agency; whenever there’s a change in leadership, the approach to handling things changes as well. In the end, it’s all about securing approval powers for one’s own department. If it’s just a matter of signing documents in exchange for money, then there’s nothing more to discuss~~~

Different departments have established different standards; for example, the AQ standard is based on those of other industries, while the GB standard should be followed.

**For those specified in the standards, follow the **standards**; for those not covered by the standards, use the AQ standards. Industry standards are more detailed.

Such problems are particularly evident **within the safety supervision agency itself**

Many AQ standards have been issued in 2008, covering a wide range of areas. Some of the content is new, but much of it is simply a rephrasing of what was established by the former Ministry of Labor; this is probably done to ensure continuity in work efforts and to highlight certain achievements. To be honest, I personally think that our country’s standards are terrible – there is a lot of copying among them, and many problems appear repeatedly in different standards; they lack relevance to the industry and also lack rigor. Regarding the guidelines for preparing plans mentioned above, Document No. 43 issued by the former State Administration of Work Safety is no longer in use; currently, it is required to follow AQ/T9002-2006 for such preparations.

That can’t be right. In my opinion, if there is no conflict between the ** standards and industry standards (with industry standards being higher than ** standards), then the industry standards should be followed; if there is a conflict (with industry standards being lower than ** standards), then the ** standards should take precedence. There is no such thing as a smaller standard being subordinate to a larger one!

The poster’s question is worth exploring: just as is the issue of applicable standards for chemical enterprises and petrochemical enterprises. The \"Regulations on Safety and Health Design for Chemical Enterprises\" (HG20571–95) stipulate explicitly that the fire separation distances between equipment, pipelines, and buildings (structures) within chemical production facilities shall comply with the requirements set out in the \"Code for Fire Protection Design of Petrochemical Enterprises\" (GB50160), as well as other codes such as the \"Code for Fire Protection Design of Buildings\" (GBJ16). A chemical manufacturing company failed to meet the 25-meter requirement specified in building codes, as the fire separation distance between its storage tanks and facilities was insufficient (both classified as Class A). If it meets the petrochemical regulations. Moreover, the results of lightning and static electricity protection tests, as well as fire protection electrical system tests, all meet the requirements of the petrochemical standard GB50160.

There should be no conflict. For example, in the case mentioned by the original poster, the document was from 2004; now it’s based on the AQ standards, so of course the latest version should be applied!

I’ve looked at several AQ standards; they are formulated in a very simple manner, are vague, lack operational feasibility, have poor structure, and show poor integration with other standards. It is particularly evident that the \"Safety Code for Electrical Explosion Protection in Hazardous Areas\" AQ3009-2007 is not consistent with GB50058-92: there is an additional category for areas with flammable dust, and zones 20, 21, and 22 are used, which is in clear contradiction with GB50058-92. How, then, should it be implemented? After much anticipation, the \"Technical Requirements for Safe Use of Liquid Chlorine\" AQ3014-2008 was finally released, but its content and level of practicality are far inferior to those of the \"Safety Regulations for Chlorine Gas\". Therefore, I think that the existing standards should be revised rather than creating something awkward; the original standards shouldn’t be abolished either – how can anyone implement them then?

Many of the original chemical industry standards have been abolished; nowadays, the design of chemical plants is primarily guided by petrochemical regulations and building codes. However, since most chemical plants are small-scale enterprises, many of these regulations are not suitable for them.

There should be no problem: the new is higher than the old, with laws, regulations, norms, and standards becoming progressively less stringent.

Not all AQ standards are mandatory; some are advisory. Chemical companies can refer to the standards based on their own characteristics; if they are mandatory, then compliance is required. **Standards are also divided into GB (mandatory) and GBT (recommended). The original poster can check whether they are recommended or mandatory; if they are all mandatory, that would be contradictory. But I think **establishing standards should not be contradictory to each other.

I was fortunate to attend a safety training session focused on the interpretation of the new AQ standards and their differences from the HG standards. The lecture was given by Mei Jian, director of the China National Chemical Industry Standardization Institute.