Identification of major hazard sources for ammonia
Thread Content
I saw a discussion on the identification of major hazard sources related to toluene; the original post is at http://bbs.hcbbs.com/thread-362667-1-1.html. I would also like to ask everyone: under GB18218, ammonia is classified as a toxic substance, and its critical quantity is 100 tons for storage and 40 tons for production； In the **department’s documents, the scope of registration for major hazard sources includes ammonia under the category of flammable gases (ammonia is given as an example); the critical amount is 20 tons for storage and 2 tons for production. So, which standard should be followed for identifying major hazard sources of ammonia?
We evaluate in accordance with GB18218; ammonia is classified as a toxic substance, with a critical amount of 100 tons for storage and 40 tons for production.
1. Principle of maximum hazard: (1) If a hazard source contains multiple hazardous substances and various types of accidents, consideration shall be given to the hazardous substance and accident type that result in the most severe consequences； (2) If a hazardous substance has multiple accident scenarios and their consequences vary greatly, the scenario with the most severe consequences shall be taken into consideration. 2. Principle of probability summation: If a hazardous substance can lead to various types of accidents, and the consequences of these accidents are not significantly different from one another, then the overall consequences of the accidents can be estimated using the principle of statistical averaging. According to the principle of maximum hazard, the main danger of ammonia is its toxicity; therefore, it should be identified in accordance with GB18218. The above are my personal opinions; I’m not sure if my understanding is correct, so I welcome any criticism and suggestions from everyone. Thank you!
Identification is carried out in two steps: the first is based on the standards for identifying major hazard sources – the critical amount for ammonia in production sites is 40 tons, while it is 100 tons in storage areas. Second, it is identified in accordance with the Guidelines issued by the former **Production Supervision and Administration Bureau on Carrying Out Supervision and Management of Major Hazard Sources (Document No. An Jian Guan Xie He Zi 56). The critical amount is 20 tons for storage and 2 tons for production.
If the actual amount exceeds the limits specified in GB, it is considered a major hazard source; if it falls between the requirements outlined in Document No. 56 and those of GB, it falls within the scope of substances that need to be declared as major hazard sources; if it is less than the thresholds specified in Document No. 56, then it is not considered a major hazard source at all. Is that reasonable now? This post was last edited by Meiyu Jihai 615 on 2009-2-13 10:19.]
In our company’s workshop, 4 tons are recycled. According to the regulations issued by the **authority, ammonia is classified as a flammable gas; the critical amount for storage is 20 tons, while for production it is 2 tons. It is directly classified as a major hazard source. I think it can be determined based on one’s internal circumstances; in any case, it is beneficial to pay more attention to management.
When identifying major hazard sources, GB18218 should be followed; for submission purposes, Document No. 56 applies. Conducting safety assessments is much simpler when using GB18218. However, it can be mentioned later that Document No. 56 determines the scope of submission
If 30 tons of ammonia are stored, it is not considered a major hazard source, but it falls within the scope for reporting major hazard sources, right?
This post was last edited by ZZJJAA70 on 2009-5-8 00:08. I’ve only been working with this for a short time, and I would like to ask the experts here: what is the difference between the scope of reporting major hazard sources and the process of identifying them as such?
If it falls within the scope for reporting major hazard sources, then a report must be submitted. It’s actually empty! (At least for now)
It depends on the standard you use; depending on which standard is applied, ammonia will fall into that particular category of hazard.
First, identify major hazard sources according to the standards, and then determine whether they fall within the scope of registration required for major hazard sources in accordance with Document No. 56.
The two are not contradictory; one sets regulations from the perspective of toxicity, while the other does so from the perspective of flammability and explosiveness. In the actual design and safety management processes, strict criteria should be chosen so that both requirements are met.
You need to match this; you have to align what you use with the standards
**The status of standards should be higher than that of industry-specific regulatory documents; GB18218 serves as the basis for determining whether a particular entity constitutes a major hazard source, whereas Document No. 56 can only indicate whether it is possible to manage such an entity as a major hazard source
**The status of standards should be higher than that of industry-specific regulatory documents. GB18218 serves as the basis for determining whether a certain entity constitutes a major hazard source, while Document No. 56 can only indicate whether it is possible to manage such an entity as a major hazard source. What the person above said makes sense