Definition of the status of rectification for potential hazards

Management is difficult; from a technical standpoint, aspects such as automation and protection measures are needed to reduce the likelihood of such incidents – it’s possible only over a hundred years, or even thousands of years!

The typical awareness of red lines isn’t properly understood!

This constitutes a serious safety hazard; if the company is unable to address it on its own, it must report to the local safety supervision department. Reference.

The safety distance is insufficient; this is a common problem among many older enterprises, and it’s a real challenge. The solutions are essentially: 1. Relocation, either by the company moving away, or by those in the surrounding area moving away, or by creating enough distance between them. 2. It’s not possible to relocate or move out of the way; isolation measures such as fire and explosion prevention measures must be employed ； For those with better conditions, improve the process and layout. 3. If nothing can be done, report the potential hazards, as well as any plans for relocation or rectification, to the Safety Supervision Bureau in order to strengthen management measures.

In my opinion, the purpose of identifying potential risks within a company is to eliminate problems that arise during the production process and to prevent such issues from occurring; it’s impossible to address such problems internally within a company； It makes no practical sense to propose this: (Firstly, if the safety distance is insufficient and your project is approved, the relevant approval authorities will have to assume great responsibility.) ； For cases where a company passes the approval but still has actual issues: don’t get stuck on the non-compliance ； Instead, the focus should be on how to strengthen security management ； Improvement in the ability to handle personnel issues ； Improving emergency response capabilities ； Ensure that no impact is caused on the surrounding areas, or minimize any impact that does occur.

Regarding the issue of external distance, I don’t quite agree with what was said above. During safety inspections, they do not review your previous approval documents or the standards in effect at that time; instead, they conduct inspections based on the current standards. When you conduct an assessment of the current situation each time, others also evaluate companies using current standards. Your original external safety distance was approved at the time, but it is now insufficient; it may have met the standards applicable back then but not those in effect today. It’s also possible that, during the approvals given in previous years, a \"pragmatic approach\" was adopted, or perhaps the relevant authorities failed to prevent others from carrying out illegal construction within your designated safety distance. But whatever the reason, you must report any potential hazards so that the entity responsible for taking on such risks can address them. Don’t pretend to be unaware; after all, it is you who know best about the dangers associated with your equipment and processes. Also, make sure your emergency plans and drills are in order; don’t be casual about them, otherwise things will get very troublesome if an incident occurs. Public opinion will not be on your side; if something goes wrong, you are considered guilty.

If an safety inspection reveals such issues and a notice for rectification is issued to your company, there can be only one outcome: **your company will need to start preparing for relocation right away, in order to have a legal basis for that relocation in the future**； Because if this is not done, a notice for rectification will be issued ； It has no practical meaning at all ； Take the safety distance as an example: no matter what a company does, this distance cannot be changed ； It is always a violation of **laws and regulations**. In the end, when you submit this notice of corrective action after implementing the software-related improvements, it is likely that the relevant security agencies will find it difficult to approve it, believing that the improvements have indeed been completed.

I know it’s frustrating; in reality, many companies do pretend not to know about this, and some evaluation reports also avoid addressing relevant issues. Some bosses simply say, “Do everything as required; no company can survive otherwise.” But for the long-term development of the company, some issues that need to be addressed must still be faced. After the August 12 incident in Tianjin, I think it no longer makes much sense to discuss this issue; policy requirements regarding safety distances will only become stricter.