Questions regarding the identification of major hazard sources?
Thread Content
Vinyl acetate is flammable, with a flash point of -8°C, but it is not listed in the GB-18218-2000 catalog of substances that constitute major hazards. So, is it considered a major hazard?
The following are merely my personal interpretations: Substances not listed in the GB18218-2000 standard on the identification of major hazard sources should be identified in accordance with the Guidelines on Carrying Out Supervision and Management of Major Hazard Sources, as stipulated in Document No. 56 issued by the Safety Supervision Department Based on the information provided by the poster, that vinyl acetate is flammable with a flash point of -8°C, this can only serve as one factor in identifying it as a major hazard source; it cannot be used to determine directly whether vinyl acetate qualifies as such. The determination of whether something constitutes a major hazard source is made based on certain **standards and regulations, which rely on critical quantities This post was last edited by lyhh9024 on 2009-4-14 08:01.]
The identification of major hazard sources is primarily carried out in accordance with 18218-2000; substances that are not among the 142 specified in the standard certainly do not qualify. However, it is recommended to refer to Document No. 56 for the management requirements.
There are many discussions regarding the management of major hazard sources; such discussions can be found on almost all relevant forums. Everyone has their own opinion, and requirements vary from place to place. At present, for hazardous chemical projects, we use 18218-2000 as the sole basis for identification; if it does not fall under the category of major hazard sources, then requirements are set out in terms of management in accordance with Document No. 56. For projects that are not hazardous chemicals, the requirements vary little from place to place; both need to be identified. Basically, following the method above will work fine in most provinces.
Currently, the identification of major hazard sources is based not only on GB18618‑2000 for the identification of such sources but also on Document No. 56; this approach has been implemented in many places, though it involves the concept of critical quantities. Units that exceed or reach a critical amount are referred to as major hazard sources.
The determination of major hazard sources should be carried out in accordance with GB18618‑2000 for the identification of such sources; Document No. 56 can only be used to determine whether a particular source falls within the scope requiring declaration as a major hazard source, and in that case it should be subject to enhanced management, but it cannot itself be considered a major hazard source.
Generally, GB18218 is used to determine whether something constitutes a major hazard source. If no relevant information can be found in GB18218, then Document No. 56 is used to decide whether it falls within the scope of reporting requirements. Implementation varies from place to place, but it is quite rare for Document No. 56 to be applied, as it is too complicated
This issue has been discussed many times, and there has been a lot of debate. It is recommended to consult your local safety supervision department, as they are the authorities in charge at the local level
Agree with that view. We are also doing it this way at the moment.
Although the identification of major hazard sources is primarily governed by standard 18218-2000, given the flammable nature of vinyl acetate, if your unit has a large stockpile of it, it can be considered a major hazard source. As for whether to file a report or not, it depends on the decision of your management. Personally, I think it’s better to file a report – safety must come first
Jiangsu only uses 18,218; if not, then it’s not applicable. Pilot programs for controlling major hazard sources have already been launched in Jiangsu, and these programs will be expanded across the entire province. If 56 is used, wouldn’t monitoring become very complicated? This post was last edited by Xiao Mo on 2009-4-17 at 16:08.]
It is not a major hazard source, but in some places, the work safety supervision bureaus require it to be managed on a basis similar to that of major hazard sources
In Jiangsu, the approach isn’t always based on Document 18218; sometimes Document 56 is used instead. For example, in a certain area of Suzhou, I conducted a assessment of major hazard sources there using Document 56. This post was last edited by Lao Kong on 2009-4-17 23:38.]
It is correct to consult the local safety supervision authorities, but compliance must be ensured in accordance with higher-level standards; in some places, the safety supervision authorities are not clear about these standards, so it’s better to make our own decisions
GB18218-2000 provides a relatively accurate basis for assessment, but there are significant differences in the data available on the market. Regarding methanol, some sources indicate a threshold of 2 tons at the production site, while others cite 20 tons. Therefore, the management of major hazard sources in China is not yet fully developed. It is hoped that relevant regulatory systems will be improved as soon as possible. It is recommended to refer to both Document No. 56 and GB18218-2000. The key aspect with regard to major hazard sources is proper management; regardless of the method used for assessment, it must be taken seriously without any negligence. This is especially true for companies that are new and about to start trial production – strict controls must be in place.