Regarding the compliance of the reservoir area with the new standards
Thread Content
**There is an increasing emphasis on chemical safety, and as a storage area for chemical products, it is inevitable to face numerous inspections and evaluations by higher-level regulatory authorities; this is quite normal. But nowadays, the inspection and evaluation carried out by the competent authorities generally involve external experts, or they simply delegate such tasks to safety assessment companies or even design institutes, using the latest existing standards. And now many new standards for safety, environmental protection, as well as the petrochemical and port industries have been issued (from 2013, 2014, 2015, and even 2016). This raises a question: Our storage area has been in use for 6 or 7 years, so it’s considered relatively new. The standards used at that time were the latest version from 2005 (as there were several years involved in planning, design, approval, and construction), and they differ significantly from the current latest standards. The experts raised many issues based on the latest version of the standards; some of these can be addressed, but others relate to the initial design, and resolving them may require fundamental changes. It’s not something that can be solved simply by investing money – at present, it’s not clear what to do. The issues raised by the experts were all requests in writing for corrective action. I have also discussed this with some experts, but their general attitude is that they follow the regulations; any issues identified must be reported, and it is up to you to make the necessary corrections. Has anyone encountered these problems? What are the ways to deal with them? Let’s discuss it and pool our ideas
It is generally done in accordance with the standards at the time of construction completion inspection, which is normal and reasonable. In subsequent inspections, experts can only provide recommendations based on the latest standards; they cannot enforce corrective actions.
However, regarding the suggestions put forward by experts, the safety supervision and management authorities generally still require corrective actions.
Well, experts generally understand and accept this view, right? There are several ways: 1. Experts can provide suggestions, explaining why changes are not appropriate at the moment. 2. In the expert opinions, those that cannot be implemented should be deleted.
I’ve tried all of these, but they don’t work. The suggestions were made by experts during on-site inspections and reviews, but it is the higher-level supervising authority that requires corrective actions. If it cannot be deleted, it must be rectified
This post was last edited by cjgj008 on 2016-11-26 at 23:27. Some of the issues involve infinite loops; for example, there are fire protection requirements for tank storage areas. The old standards set lower requirements during construction, but the new standards impose higher ones. We can’t possibly demolish the storage area and rebuild it just to meet those requirements, right? There is also a requirement regarding fire separation distances. When we built the reservoir area, the surrounding area was barren land, so all the requirements could be met. But later, various companies, buildings, and utility facilities were constructed in the vicinity. Now, after an assessment, it is said that our fire separation distances are insufficient – where can we go to appeal this?
Some are fundamental issues that cannot be resolved. It is recommended to consult a professional evaluation company for a thorough assessment and to obtain alternative solutions. Other feasible safety measures can be added to reduce the frequency of such accidents.
Can’t you see it that clearly? Experts can point out some issues that cannot be resolved, as well as some minor problems; the key is to determine whether your work has been done adequately or not. For issues that cannot be resolved, as long as efforts have been made, can an explanation or a deadline be provided? Give it a try.
The design drawings and implementation specifications can be provided to the experts
It’s not easy for experts either. To protect oneself, one spares no effort.
Experts can be asked questions; you can consult them on how to solve the problems. After all, it’s not right to just present a problem without having any idea yourself