Views on project safety assessment

Safety assessment goes to such a deep level; no theoretical research is conducted, and safety assessment serves only as a means of supervision. You mentioned the intrinsic safety of process equipment; I think it should be the responsibility of the design institute and the process package owner.

The direction of safety assessment is correct; it’s just that China’s current national conditions mean that safety assessment is still in its initial stages. On one hand, there is a lack of technical expertise, and on the other hand, safety assessment has deviated from its proper purpose. Nevertheless, safety assessment does play a significant role in helping enterprises and reducing accidents. It is also urgent to improve the qualifications of those who conduct safety assessments. At present, a large portion of such assessors have obtained their qualifications through training, and the exams used to certify them have many shortcomings. Among those with certification, very few possess both a solid theoretical knowledge base and practical experience in actual production. On the other hand, current safety assessments, carried out with the involvement of safety supervision agencies, are driven by profit motives and fierce competition, resulting in excessively low prices; low costs inevitably lead to low quality. For example, for a project with an investment of 50 million, the evaluation cost might be 50,000 yuan. The evaluation agency has to account for many costs (the safety supervision department accounts for nearly 50% of these costs), so it is not possible for the agency to spend one or two months on preparing a thorough report; instead, it is required to complete the report within a week, which means the quality of the report can only be superficial and not in-depth. If the reported costs do not include a commission for the safety supervision agency, and provided that the institution ensures profitability, it is easy to meet strict requirements and improve the quality of the reports. I have been working in the safety assessment industry for about 5 years now, and I am also a assessor. I know a bit about these matters. Everyone needs to eat, so it’s not easy. This industry is quite demanding, but it’s great for improving one’s skills. I hope that those who want to enhance their abilities will get involved in this field, visit as many companies as possible, and learn more about production and society

The development of safety assessment started a bit late, but it can be seen that the relevant authorities are constantly making adjustments – there have been revisions to the guidelines for safety assessment as well as to the rules regarding hazard assessment. Now, a draft for quantitative risk assessment has been released. The Department in charge of hazardous chemicals plans to promote the use of HAZOP on a wide scale this year. Safety assessment still needs to be improved step by step; there’s no need to rush things, take it slowly

At the current stage, safety assessments are conducted by companies merely for the purpose of obtaining approvals or renewing permits, and they do not receive sufficient attention from these companies. As a result, the professional requirements for those who carry out safety assessments vary widely. Unless safety assessments enable companies to derive real benefits from them, rather than serving merely as a means to obtain approvals, then this field will not develop rapidly, and the technical capabilities in this area will not improve either; the safety assessment industry will not be in such a passive position at present!

I have done safety assessments before, and I think this industry is like a universal solution – one that requires knowledge of various fields, yet no expertise in any of them; moreover, people in this industry suffer a lot, mainly from the pressure exerted by the safety supervision system. Improving report quality is a process, but the current competitive landscape in this industry makes it difficult to achieve progress. I’m the one who reviews reports, and I realize that my colleagues have it tough as well; they rely on commissions to make a living, so they just manage to get the reports done in a half-hearted manner, and the quality of those reports is questionable. Safety assessment is like being inside a besieged city: those inside want to get out, while those outside want to get in. As for what it’s really like, only one can understand it themselves. Are there things that cannot be influenced by price? No matter how much money is given, the quality won’t improve; what’s important is how individuals and companies enhance their own capabilities. It’s a shame that profitability comes first, and other risks can be ignored.

Our company spends an average of 10 to 20 million yuan each year on safety assessments, and I think it’s a complete waste of money.

Safety assessments have padded people’s pockets

The person on the third floor spoke very well; I agree with their views. I am in charge of production management at a chemical company, with 20 years of experience in this field. I am also responsible for project management, and I hold a certified engineer certificate – mainly to ensure safe production management. Regarding the safety assessment of projects, indeed there are the problems mentioned by the person on the third floor; that’s absolutely true. On one hand, the relevant departments claim to pay attention to safety, but in reality they only care about profits and don’t prioritize the quality of safety assessments. On the other hand, the companies themselves don’t give it enough importance either; most companies try to save money and complete the assessments as quickly as possible, often producing the reports within one or two weeks. The reviews of these reports are also merely a formality. That’s the current situation. What’s even more concerning is that it is still up to us, the production and technical staff, to address the inherent safety issues related to the processing equipment, all in an effort to prevent accidents and reduce casualties among employees.

Due to a lack of technical personnel and an insufficient understanding of the industries being evaluated, safety assessment companies find it very difficult to identify safety defects in processes and equipment. Even when such professionals are available, the assessment agencies often stay on site for only a short time, out of a desire to control costs, which prevents them from detecting these defects. For acceptance evaluations, some assessment agencies even do not examine the preliminary design drawings or construction documents; as a result, they have no idea whether the construction has met the requirements set by the design team. It is certainly impossible for them to identify any inherent safety issues related to the process equipment. Essentially, the intrinsic safety of process equipment should be the responsibility of the design unit; otherwise, what responsibility do the design and construction units bear? The responsibility of the safety assessment agency is to verify the compliance of construction with the design. If it is found that the construction does not conform to the design, first, the company is required to make corrections; if it is unable to do so, the design firm must provide amendment documents or certification letters. This constitutes the minimum standard for us to conduct the acceptance evaluation. In my personal opinion, given the current concepts of corporate security and the state of security oversight, what can you do if you discover defects in a process but the company is unable to make the necessary corrections? The current evaluation standards have long changed; the safety supervision agency requires that all report conclusions be satisfactory, leaving the evaluation agencies with no choice but to comply.