Major hazard source
Thread Content
According to the \"Guiding Opinions on Carrying Out Supervision and Management of Major Hazard Sources\" (An Jian Guan Xie He Zi No. 56), how is the chlorine critical amount determined? If, according to the regulations regarding highly toxic substances, 100 grams are the limit for the production site, then if a company has 2 tons of such substance, it constitutes a major hazard of level 4, and it is necessary to report this to the **authority?
In accordance with GB 18218-2000 \"Identification of Major Hazard Sources\", the critical amount for chlorine in production areas is 10 tons, while it is 25 tons in storage areas; therefore, the situation described by the poster does not constitute a major hazard source!
Replying to floor 2: The requirements for setting up evaluations shall be determined in accordance with Document No. 56 issued by the Safety Supervision Coordination Office; there is no other way.
Based on the chlorine LC50 value, it doesn’t even qualify as a hazardous substance; of course, it doesn’t constitute a major hazard source.
The scope of declaration and registration for major hazard sources, as specified in item 3 of the \"Guiding Opinions on the Supervision and Management of Major Hazard Sources,\" defines a major hazard source as a unit (including sites and facilities) that permanently or temporarily produces, transports, uses, or stores hazardous substances, and where the quantity of such substances is equal to or exceeds the critical level. In accordance with the **Standards for Identifying Major Hazard Sources (GB18218-2000)** and the **Work Safety Law**, as well as the requirements of actual work. Therefore, I agree with the view from the second floor that the declaration should be made in accordance with \"GB 18218-2000 Identification of Major Hazard Sources\".
**The standards represent the minimum requirements; local authorities and industries can certainly set stricter standards than those. Since there are such requirements, they should be followed.
Engineer Wu, you should explain that this is a local requirement – it is necessary to use the \"Document No. 56\" for identification; GB18218 applies in a different context. The comments suggesting the use of GB for identification are unrelated to the original question and can be considered invalid replies!
When we conducted evaluations before, both Document No. 56 and GB18218 required the identification of hazard sources. About a month ago, it was decided to use GB18218 exclusively for identifying hazard sources, with Document No. 56 no longer being used; it seems that Document No. 56 was too strict and somewhat detached from reality
Upstairs, **when was it specified that GB18218 should be used uniformly for identifying hazard sources? Is there any official document stating this? In response to the original poster’s question, in accordance with the \"Guiding Opinions on the Supervision and Management of Major Hazard Sources\" (Safety Supervision Coordination Document No. 56), chlorine is a highly toxic substance, and the threshold amount should be calculated at 100 grams per production site. Since the enterprise has 2 tons of chlorine, this amount falls within the scope that requires declaration as a major hazard source. As for the classification of major hazard sources, it seems that there are no clear regulations yet.
I’ve only heard that the criteria for identifying major hazard sources are about to change, but I don’t know which standard will be used or what new signs will be introduced for identification; it seems that a decision might be made this year.
Here, we will first follow GB18218; if that does not apply, then we will use Document No. 56. Chlorine is a highly toxic substance, but its LC50 value is 850 mg/m3, which is equivalent to 0.85 mg/L. According to Table 2 of the Classification of Toxic Substances issued by the Safety Supervision and Coordination Office under Document No. 56 (0.5 < LC50 ≤ 2), it is classified as a toxic substance. It’s confusing.
In accordance with GB 18218-2000 \"Identification of Major Hazard Sources\", it does not constitute a major hazard source. Document No. 56 applies to substances that are not listed in the “Identification of Major Hazard Sources”. The “Identification of Major Hazard Sources” is currently being revised.
Let me say a few things. Chlorine is mainly used in the following two situations: 1. For storing liquid chlorine, a dedicated storage facility must be provided; the amount stored is usually enough for one week’s use, and it must be treated as a major hazard source. (That is, no matter how much liquid chlorine is stored, it definitely constitutes a major hazard source.) 2. Liquid chlorine cylinders are not allowed to be placed in the production area. Whether it is a hazard source is determined based on the critical values specified in the \"Identification of Major Hazard Sources\" (GB18218-2002). 3. The requirements of the work safety supervision bureaus in each province also vary. The above is my personal understanding; please correct me if I’m wrong: handshake
Is it confirmed that there are relevant documents? Could you send it over so everyone can learn from it? That way, things will be less troublesome in future work