If it is not a hazardous chemical, does that mean there is no need to consider fire hazards?
Thread Content
Just because something is not a hazardous chemical does it mean that fire hazards need not be considered? Ammonia storage tanks with a 20% concentration are designed as Category C liquids; ammonia with a concentration of less than 10% is not a hazardous chemical, but does that mean it is not considered a Category C liquid?
It’s a conceptual error! Hazardous chemicals and fire hazards are two different concepts! The bases, criteria, and logic for judgment are all different. The criteria for identifying hazardous chemicals are, one, to refer to the \"Catalog of Hazardous Chemicals\", and two, to trace back to the GB30000 series of standards ； As for the determination of fire hazard, there are various statements in the interpretations of various fire protection code provisions. But in general, since it is not a hazardous chemical, its fire hazard is likely to be low ； However, many substances with a low fire hazard are actually hazardous chemicals, after all, fire hazard is just one small category among the various hazards associated with chemicals! Speaking of ammonia solution, it is a controversial substance. Where there is controversy, there is subjectivity, and subjectivity depends on how experts approach it. It’s not like alcohol, for which the regulations are clearly defined; when the regulations are not clear, as a precaution, one can only rely on the intentions expressed during the evaluation process! :L:L:L