The issue of discrepancies between the design drawings and the as-built drawings,
Thread Content
I’d like to ask everyone – our company has a project. Before the project started, experts held a review meeting, and there were design drawings from the design institute. But during the actual installation process. Due to objective reasons such as pipeline routing. There have been some minor changes in the arrangement of several devices. This has caused a slight change in the location of one piece of equipment between the as-built drawings and the design drawings. The review experts believe a preliminary evaluation needs to be conducted again, while the design institute believes that there have been no changes to the safety facilities and no additional equipment has been added. No changes to the equipment; just minor adjustments to the layout. There is no need to redo the preliminary evaluation. What exactly should be done about it? The emergency management department in that small area seems to have no definite decision yet.
The process, process flow, process medium, pressure, and products manufactured have not changed, so no re-evaluation is required. The as-built drawings should reflect the actual situation accurately.
1. How can a construction plan be approved? 2. Does the design institute have confirmation documents for the construction changes? 3. Process control records? Don’t look for the cause until a result has been achieved! Following the procedures is the right thing to do!
Now none of these are a problem. However, the adjustments to the layout details require a re-evaluation, which is really frustrating.
The review expert requested that a preliminary evaluation be conducted again, and I humbly asked him what standards or regulations served as the basis for this request; generally, such requests are made only when there is a relevant basis
In my case, all that’s needed is for the design institute to issue a change order. Still, it is recommended to consult an expert and ask them to provide the basis for their approach. What was said above is correct; it’s better to follow the rules.
The as-built drawings of any project are different from the design drawings. In my opinion, as long as there are no significant changes (such as major adjustments to the process scheme and flow, equipment layout, overall layout, etc.), it should not be necessary to conduct a new preliminary evaluation; at most, a supplementary evaluation report should be prepared to review the changed parts. It’s best to consult experts regarding the regulatory requirements and act in accordance with them; however, this is a bit difficult, as companies generally cannot afford to offend expert leaders. Speaking of management matters, our management approach tends to focus on proactive management; the rationale behind this seems noble – to nip problems in the bud. However, in practice, this often remains just a formality that imposes an extra burden on the company. There is a lot of power-seeking through backdoor tactics, while few cases involve strict adherence to procedures. Many environmental and safety assessments have been carried out, a lot of money has been spent, and the social costs have been high; yet accidents continue to occur. It is recommended to adopt a posterior management approach and establish comprehensive laws and regulations; severe penalties should be imposed on companies that violate these rules, so as to make environmental protection and safety matters that companies take seriously on their own initiative – after all, no company wants to see its investments wasted.
This is something that happens frequently on our end; there’s no need for any major changes. When the project is completed, it’s sufficient to include an inspection report on safety in the completion documents.
A minor change like yours can prompt the design institute to issue a revised design statement. If the experts remain inflexible, it is possible to ask the experts who conducted the initial design review to evaluate and confirm the design changes.
That’s correct; I encountered this situation in my previous factory, and it was resolved through the change instructions provided by the design institute