CN116629607A - Dangerous waste environment safety risk identification and assessment method - Google Patents
Dangerous waste environment safety risk identification and assessment method Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN116629607A CN116629607A CN202310561947.9A CN202310561947A CN116629607A CN 116629607 A CN116629607 A CN 116629607A CN 202310561947 A CN202310561947 A CN 202310561947A CN 116629607 A CN116629607 A CN 116629607A
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- risk
- index
- weight
- safety
- management
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Pending
Links
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 103
- 239000002699 waste material Substances 0.000 title claims abstract description 76
- 238000011156 evaluation Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 116
- 230000007613 environmental effect Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 86
- 238000012937 correction Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 50
- 239000000126 substance Substances 0.000 claims abstract description 22
- 238000004519 manufacturing process Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 16
- 238000011835 investigation Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 9
- 238000003912 environmental pollution Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 5
- 238000011002 quantification Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 5
- 238000007726 management method Methods 0.000 claims description 99
- 239000002920 hazardous waste Substances 0.000 claims description 79
- 239000011159 matrix material Substances 0.000 claims description 30
- 238000012544 monitoring process Methods 0.000 claims description 30
- 239000013598 vector Substances 0.000 claims description 18
- 230000035945 sensitivity Effects 0.000 claims description 13
- 238000004364 calculation method Methods 0.000 claims description 12
- 238000004880 explosion Methods 0.000 claims description 12
- 238000012549 training Methods 0.000 claims description 12
- 238000012423 maintenance Methods 0.000 claims description 9
- 238000012216 screening Methods 0.000 claims description 8
- 239000000463 material Substances 0.000 claims description 7
- 238000003860 storage Methods 0.000 claims description 7
- 238000012360 testing method Methods 0.000 claims description 7
- 238000012546 transfer Methods 0.000 claims description 6
- 238000013024 troubleshooting Methods 0.000 claims description 6
- 238000004220 aggregation Methods 0.000 claims description 5
- 230000002776 aggregation Effects 0.000 claims description 5
- 238000012824 chemical production Methods 0.000 claims description 5
- 238000013139 quantization Methods 0.000 claims description 3
- 231100000419 toxicity Toxicity 0.000 claims description 3
- 230000001988 toxicity Effects 0.000 claims description 3
- 206010000369 Accident Diseases 0.000 description 11
- 238000012502 risk assessment Methods 0.000 description 10
- 238000004056 waste incineration Methods 0.000 description 6
- 238000004458 analytical method Methods 0.000 description 5
- 238000005516 engineering process Methods 0.000 description 4
- 239000007788 liquid Substances 0.000 description 3
- 238000010606 normalization Methods 0.000 description 3
- 239000003921 oil Substances 0.000 description 3
- XEEYBQQBJWHFJM-UHFFFAOYSA-N Iron Chemical compound [Fe] XEEYBQQBJWHFJM-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 230000004931 aggregating effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000001186 cumulative effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000007547 defect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000012854 evaluation process Methods 0.000 description 2
- 239000002360 explosive Substances 0.000 description 2
- 239000007789 gas Substances 0.000 description 2
- 238000007689 inspection Methods 0.000 description 2
- 239000004973 liquid crystal related substance Substances 0.000 description 2
- 239000002480 mineral oil Substances 0.000 description 2
- 235000010446 mineral oil Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 231100000572 poisoning Toxicity 0.000 description 2
- 230000000607 poisoning effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000002265 prevention Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000012545 processing Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000004064 recycling Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000005070 sampling Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000007619 statistical method Methods 0.000 description 2
- 231100000331 toxic Toxicity 0.000 description 2
- 230000002588 toxic effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000003723 Smelting Methods 0.000 description 1
- 208000027418 Wounds and injury Diseases 0.000 description 1
- 239000000370 acceptor Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000006399 behavior Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000009286 beneficial effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000033228 biological regulation Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000012512 characterization method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000003245 coal Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000002485 combustion reaction Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000001816 cooling Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000007797 corrosion Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000005260 corrosion Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000005520 cutting process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000006378 damage Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000011161 development Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000002283 diesel fuel Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000000428 dust Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000005611 electricity Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000013210 evaluation model Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000000556 factor analysis Methods 0.000 description 1
- 210000003608 fece Anatomy 0.000 description 1
- 230000006698 induction Effects 0.000 description 1
- 208000014674 injury Diseases 0.000 description 1
- 229910052742 iron Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- JQJCSZOEVBFDKO-UHFFFAOYSA-N lead zinc Chemical compound [Zn].[Pb] JQJCSZOEVBFDKO-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 239000002184 metal Substances 0.000 description 1
- 229910052751 metal Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- 238000002156 mixing Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000003960 organic solvent Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000004806 packaging method and process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000000379 polymerizing effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000010791 quenching Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000000171 quenching effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000009418 renovation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000011160 research Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000004088 simulation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000000779 smoke Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000007921 spray Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000001629 suppression Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000005406 washing Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000002918 waste heat Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000010888 waste organic solvent Substances 0.000 description 1
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0635—Risk analysis of enterprise or organisation activities
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q50/00—Systems or methods specially adapted for specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
- G06Q50/10—Services
- G06Q50/26—Government or public services
- G06Q50/265—Personal security, identity or safety
-
- Y—GENERAL TAGGING OF NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS; GENERAL TAGGING OF CROSS-SECTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES SPANNING OVER SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE IPC; TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC CROSS-REFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS [XRACs] AND DIGESTS
- Y02—TECHNOLOGIES OR APPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION OR ADAPTATION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
- Y02W—CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES RELATED TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT OR WASTE MANAGEMENT
- Y02W90/00—Enabling technologies or technologies with a potential or indirect contribution to greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions mitigation
Abstract
The invention discloses a dangerous waste environment safety risk identification and assessment method. The method comprises the following steps: step 1: collecting typical accident cases and field investigation, identifying accident risk factors, recording risk points with environmental potential safety hazards, and forming a dangerous waste enterprise safety and environmental risk identification list; step 2: and determining an index value range or a risk index quantification result from the evaluation indexes screened in the inherent risk, the management level and the dynamic correction, and dividing the environmental security risk level. The invention considers not only hidden danger in daily safety production process, but also hidden danger of environmental pollution caused by leakage of harmful substances and hidden danger of environmental protection facilities, thereby carrying out comprehensive environmental safety risk evaluation.
Description
Technical Field
The invention belongs to the technical field of risk identification and assessment, and particularly relates to a dangerous waste environment safety risk identification and assessment method.
Background
It is counted that fire and leakage accidents caused by tens of dangerous wastes occur in the last 5 years at home and abroad. The related accident process and cause expose the current insufficient prevention and control of the dangerous waste environmental safety risk, such as insufficient recognition of the dangerous waste environmental safety risk, and the dangerous characteristic identification and authentication technology is not in place; the dangerous wastes are stored in large quantity and illegally for a long time, and the random stacking and mixing phenomenon is serious; the dangerous waste environment safety risk prevention and control technology cannot adapt to the rapid development requirements of the dangerous waste industry and the like.
At present, most of classification management and control of hazardous wastes at home and abroad takes one of the production amount or the hazard characteristic of the hazardous wastes as a classification standard, but the classification result is too unilateral, so that not only is the leakage risk during the process of collecting and transporting the hazardous wastes not considered, but also the safety risk of equipment and facilities is ignored, so that the mode of classification management according to the production amount or the hazard characteristic does not meet the supervision requirement before, and risk assessment needs to be carried out on each link of the whole life cycle of the hazardous wastes, thereby realizing finer management.
In order to implement finer management, more comprehensive environmental safety risk assessment needs to be performed on hazardous waste enterprises, and currently, common risk assessment methods at home and abroad include an accident tree analysis method (FTA), a hazard and operability analysis (HAZOP), a safety check table method (SCL), a trace chemistry index method (DOW), a risk matrix method (LS), a working condition hazard analysis method (LEC), and the like, which can be classified into a quantitative assessment method, a qualitative assessment method, and a qualitative and quantitative assessment method according to properties.
Li Peisheng uses the "process risk factor analysis table" to identify the risk of the process of dangerous waste utilization and disposal; performing source term analysis by using a Mongolian method; parameters such as casualties radius of personnel are calculated for fires, explosions and the like of flammable and explosive hazardous wastes by using models such as a pool fire model and the like, and are used as a basis for risk division, and the environment risk evaluation on the utilization and disposal of the hazardous wastes by using a safety evaluation method is proved to be applicable and feasible.
The Dung's enrichment establishes a set of BWM-TOPSIS environmental security risk assessment system for the storage of hazardous waste production enterprises, and constructs a hazardous waste list risk assessment index system from the aspects of equipment, management level, hazardous waste property and operation. The Best Worst Method (BWM) is then used to calculate the standard weights and rank the alternatives by order performance Techniques (TOPSIS) similar to the ideal solution.
Gu Xiaodong and the like propose that the dangerous waste management unit sudden environmental safety event risk assessment index items mainly comprise the ratio Q of the quantity of environmental and safety hazard articles to the critical quantity; the process flow and the risk management and control level value M of the emergency environmental safety event; sensitive index E of environmental hazard acceptors.
The five-high risk management and control system is applied and verified in industries such as dangerous chemicals, non-coal mines (underground, open air, tailing ponds), metal smelting, industry and trade, fireworks and crackers, and the like, is successfully put on line based on a dynamic monitoring system of '5+1+N', but is not applied in the field of dangerous waste environmental safety.
Disclosure of Invention
The invention provides a dangerous waste environment safety risk identification and assessment method aiming at the defects of the prior art.
The technical scheme of the invention is as follows: a dangerous waste environment safety risk identification and assessment method comprises the following steps:
step 1: collecting typical accident cases and field investigation, identifying accident risk factors, recording risk points with environmental potential safety hazards, and forming a dangerous waste enterprise safety and environmental risk identification list;
step 2: the method comprises the steps of determining an index value range or a risk index quantification result from evaluation indexes screened in inherent risks, management levels and dynamic correction, and dividing environmental security risk levels;
the evaluation indexes of the inherent risk screening comprise a high-risk object index of the hazardous waste, a high-risk place index of the hazardous waste, a high-risk equipment index of the hazardous waste, a high-risk process index of the hazardous waste and a high-risk operation index of the hazardous waste;
the high-risk article index refers to dangerous chemicals in dangerous wastes and auxiliary materials;
the high-risk place index of the hazardous waste refers to places where safety accidents and sudden environmental events occur in the process of collecting the hazardous waste in the disposal and utilization process;
the high-risk equipment index of the hazardous waste refers to equipment which has explosion leakage risk or high energy in the hazardous waste generation transportation, identification, treatment and utilization stage and causes the unexpected release of the energy;
The dangerous waste high-risk process index refers to a process of safety or leakage accidents caused by the change of the state and attribute of the process in the dangerous waste disposal or utilization process;
the high-risk operation index of the hazardous waste refers to operation of safety accidents and environmental pollution accidents caused by misoperation;
the evaluation indexes of the management level screening comprise unit risk frequency indexes; the unit risk frequency index is measured by the safety control level of the enterprise hazardous waste environment; determining evaluation indexes from two dimensions of safety management and environment management, calculating index weights by using a hierarchical method, and calculating enterprise risk management and control standardization scores by combining a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method so as to quantify unit risk frequency indexes;
the evaluation index of the dynamic correction screening comprises a monitoring characteristic index.
According to the embodiment of the invention, the method for calculating the inherent risk obtains the inherent risk value by utilizing multiplication and aggregation, and the risk point fixed risk index h is defined as
h=h
s
ME
1
E
2
K
1
K
2
Wherein:h s -an inherent risk index of the hazardous waste high risk equipment index;
M-a hazardous waste high risk item matter index risk index;
E 1 -index personnel exposure index for high risk sites of hazardous waste;
E 2 -index environmental safety receptor sensitivity coefficient of dangerous waste high-risk places;
K 1 -a high risk process index correction factor for hazardous waste;
K 2 -dangerous correction factors of dangerous waste high-risk operation indexes;
the inherent risk index of the high-risk equipment index of the dangerous wasteh s The value range is 1.0-1.7;
dangerous waste high-risk article substance index risk indexMDetermined by the fire, explosion, toxicity and energy characteristics of the high-risk articles at the risk points,
calculating the ratio q of the existing quantity of dangerous waste in the factory boundary to the critical quantity of each pure substance in the identification of the major dangerous source of dangerous chemical, and the m value of the product of the dangerous characteristic correction coefficients of the corresponding objects as a grading index, and determining according to the grading resultMThe value range is 1-9;
the calculation method of the m value is as follows:
wherein:q 1 ,q 2 ,…,q n -the actual amount of each high risk item present, unit: ton (ton)
Q 1 ,Q 2 ,…,Q n -critical quantity corresponding to each high risk item, unit: ton (ton)
β 1 ，β 2 …,β n -correction factors corresponding to each high-risk item
Index personnel exposure index of dangerous waste high-risk placeE 1 The number p of the exposure people in the risk point is measured, and the value range is 1-9;
index environmental safety receptor sensitivity coefficient of dangerous waste high-risk place E 2 Grading and taking values according to an enterprise emergency risk grading method and a dangerous chemical production device and storage facility external safety protection distance determining method, wherein the range of the values is 1-7;
the high-risk process index correction coefficient of the hazardous wasteK 1 The failure rate correction coefficient K of the facility is monitored and controlled by monitoring 1 The characteristics of the product are characterized in that,
K
1
=1+l
wherein:l-monitoring an average value of failure rates of monitoring facilities in the risk points;
dangerous correction coefficient of dangerous waste high-risk operation indexK 2 The characteristics of the product are characterized in that,
K
2
=1+0.05t
wherein:t-the number of high risk job categories is involved in the risk point.
According to the embodiment of the invention, the unit risk frequency index comprises risk frequency index selection, index weight determination by a hierarchical analysis method and fuzzy evaluation;
the risk frequency index selection comprises a target layer A, a criterion layer B and an index layer C;
the target layer a comprises an environmental security management index system a,
criterion layer B includes security management index B 1 Environmental management index B 2 ；
The safety management index B 1 Security administration or security manager C comprising an index layer C 1 Safety management system C 2 Safety education cultureTraining C 3 Hidden trouble shooting and controlling C 4 Dangerous source identification and control C 5 Safety protection facility management C 6 Maintenance and dangerous work management C 7 Emergency rescue C 8 Safety production administrative punishment C 9 ；
The environment management index B 2 Pollution environmental control liability system C including index layer C 10 Management plan and account system C 11 Pollution discharge license system C 12 Transfer System C 13 Environmental monitoring C 14 Run-time environment management C 15 Business training C 16 Environmental emergency plan C 17 Environment-friendly administrative punishment situation C 18 ；
The analytic hierarchy process determines index weights:
the expert compares index elements of the same level in pairs by adopting a 1-9 scale method to obtain a judgment matrix, carries out weighted arithmetic average treatment after consistency test, and adopts a power method to obtain the weight value of each index factor;
the weights of the indexes are obtained by using an analytic hierarchy process as follows:
b layer is relative to A layer, safety management index B 1 Weight is 0.5, environmental management index B 2 The weight is 0.5;
layer C relative to layer B
Security administration or security manager C 1 The weight is 0.0612;
safety management system C 2 The weight is 0.0628;
safety education and training C 3 The weight is 0.113;
hidden trouble shooting and controlling C 4 The weight is 0.1908;
dangerous source identification and control C 5 The weight is 0.1424;
safety protection facility management C 6 The weight is 0.1492;
maintenance and dangerous operation management C 7 The weight is 0.1846;
emergency rescue C 8 The weight is 0.0666;
safety production administrative punishment C 9 The weight is 0.0568;
pollution environmental control responsibility system C 10 The weight is 0.0926;
management plan and account system C 11 The weight is 0.0956;
pollution discharge license system C 12 The weight is 0.101;
transfer regime C 13 The weight is 0.1286;
environment monitoring C 14 The weight is 0.1552;
run-time environment management C 15 The weight is 0.0994;
business training C 16 The weight is 0.1048;
environmental emergency plan C 17 The weight is 0.1022;
environment-friendly administrative punishment situation C 18 Weight is 0.0928
Layer C relative to layer A
Security administration or security manager C 1 The weight is 0.0306;
safety management system C 2 The weight is 0.0314;
safety education and training C 3 The weight is 0.0565;
hidden trouble shooting and controlling C 4 The weight is 0.0954;
dangerous source identification and control C 5 The weight is 0.0712;
safety protection facility management C 6 The weight is 0.0746;
maintenance and dangerous operation management C 7 The weight is 0.0923;
emergency rescue C 8 The weight is 0.0333;
safety production administrative punishment C 9 The weight is 0.0284;
pollution environmental control responsibility system C 10 The weight is 0.0463;
management plan and account system C 11 The weight is 0.0478;
pollution discharge license system C 12 The weight is 0.0505;
transfer regime C 13 The weight is 0.0643;
environment monitoring C 14 The weight is 0.0776;
run-time environment management C 15 The weight is 0.0497;
business training C 16 The weight is 0.0524;
environmental emergency plan C 17 The weight is 0.0511;
environment-friendly administrative punishment situation C 18 The weight is 0.0464;
the fuzzy evaluation comprises determining membership degree, establishing a management index system evaluation set and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation;
determining a number to represent the attribution degree of the evaluation object to the evaluation set in the process of determining the membership degree, namely, determining the number between 0 and 1; the calculation formula is as follows:
the management index system evaluation set is established to divide the comprehensive risk evaluation index of the hazardous waste enterprises into five grades according to the risk frequency index,
its corresponding score and rank parameter vector are as follows:
the optimal corresponding score is 90-100, and the grade vector parameter is 95;
the good correspondence score is 70-89, and the grade vector parameter is 80;
corresponding scores 60-69 and grade vector parameters 65;
the score value is generally 40-59, and the grade vector parameter is 50;
the difference value is less than 40, and the grade vector parameter is 20;
the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation comprises a first-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and a second-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation;
after the secondary fuzzy comprehensive evaluation is completed, the membership of each evaluation grade and the grade parameter vector of the comment set are aggregated to obtain a fuzzy evaluation score;
Obtaining a unit risk frequency index G according to the fuzzy evaluation score, wherein the reciprocal of the score is used as a unit risk frequency index quantization value, and the formula is as follows:
G=100/v
wherein: G-Unit risk frequency index;
v-hazardous waste normalized environmental safety management fuzzy evaluation score.
The beneficial technical effects of the invention are as follows: the hidden danger in the daily safety production process is considered, and the hidden danger of environmental pollution caused by leakage of harmful substances and the hidden danger of environmental protection facilities are also considered, so that comprehensive environmental safety risk evaluation is performed; the sensitivity coefficient of an environmental safety receptor is increased, the risk frequency is used for constructing an enterprise management risk index system from two dimensions of safety management and environmental management, the calculation result of an AHP-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is used for quantifying the risk frequency index, the five-high model is coupled with the AHP-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model, and the applicability of the five-high model in the field of dangerous waste environmental safety is increased.
Detailed Description
The invention is further illustrated below with reference to examples.
A dangerous waste environment safety risk identification and assessment method comprises the following steps:
step 1: collecting typical accident cases and field investigation, identifying accident risk factors, recording risk points with environmental potential safety hazards, and forming a dangerous waste enterprise safety and environmental risk identification list;
Step 2: and determining an index value range or a risk index quantification result from the evaluation indexes screened in the inherent risk, the management level and the dynamic correction, and dividing the environmental security risk level.
The dangerous waste environmental safety risk sources are widely distributed in the whole life cycle of the production, collection and transportation process and utilization, and the literature induction method, the field investigation method and the questionnaire investigation method are adopted to comprehensively identify the environmental safety risks of dangerous waste production enterprises and management enterprises, so that a support and a demonstration foundation are provided for the establishment of dangerous waste environmental safety risk identification lists and the determination of method indexes.
The dangerous waste environment safety risk identification list is shown in the following table
。
The evaluation indexes of the inherent risk screening comprise a high-risk object index of the hazardous waste, a high-risk place index of the hazardous waste, a high-risk equipment index of the hazardous waste, a high-risk process index of the hazardous waste and a high-risk operation index of the hazardous waste;
the high-risk article index refers to dangerous chemicals in dangerous wastes and auxiliary materials;
the high-risk place index of the hazardous waste refers to places where safety accidents and sudden environmental events occur in the process of collecting the hazardous waste in the disposal and utilization process;
The high-risk equipment index of the hazardous waste refers to equipment which has explosion leakage risk or high energy in the hazardous waste generation transportation, identification, treatment and utilization stage and causes the unexpected release of the energy;
the dangerous waste high-risk process index refers to a process of safety or leakage accidents caused by the change of the state and attribute of the process in the dangerous waste disposal or utilization process;
the high-risk operation index of the hazardous waste refers to operation of safety accidents and environmental pollution accidents caused by misoperation;
the evaluation indexes of the management level screening comprise unit risk frequency indexes; the unit risk frequency index is measured by the safety control level of the enterprise hazardous waste environment; and determining evaluation indexes from two dimensions of safety management and environment management, calculating index weights by using a hierarchical method, and calculating enterprise risk management and control standardization scores by combining a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method so as to quantify unit risk frequency indexes.
The method for calculating the inherent risk obtains an inherent risk value by utilizing multiplication and aggregation, and the risk point fixed risk index h is defined as
h=h
s
ME
1
E
2
K
1
K
2
Wherein:h s -an inherent risk index of the hazardous waste high risk equipment index;
M-a hazardous waste high risk item matter index risk index;
E 1 -index personnel exposure index for high risk sites of hazardous waste;
E 2 -index environmental safety receptor sensitivity coefficient of dangerous waste high-risk places;
K 1 -a high risk process index correction factor for hazardous waste;
K 2 -dangerous correction factors of dangerous waste high-risk operation indexes.
The inherent risk index of the high-risk equipment index of the dangerous wasteh s The intrinsic safety level of the equipment and facilities at the risk points is used as a value assignment basis, the technical measure level of the equipment and facilities at the production equipment at the risk points for preventing accidents is used for representing, the value assignment is carried out according to the emergency power supply, the cooling device, the explosion suppression device, the emergency cut-off device, the safety interlocking input use condition, the corrosion condition, the maintenance condition and the like of the equipment, and the value range is 1.0-1.7.
The dangerous waste high-risk article material index risk indexMDetermining whether dangerous waste components related to enterprises relate to environmental safety risk substances according to fire, explosion, toxicity, energy and other characteristics of dangerous point high-risk objects, calculating the existing quantity of the dangerous waste in a factory (converting the dangerous waste into pure substances according to the proportion of the dangerous waste components, and if the existing quantity is dynamically changed, determining the environmental safety risk substances according to the year) The internal maximum existing amount is calculated), the ratio q of each pure substance to the critical amount in the identification of the major dangerous source of dangerous chemical, and the M value of the product of the dangerous characteristic correction coefficient of the corresponding object are used as grading indexes, and the M value is determined according to the grading result.
The calculation method of the relative quantity m value of the risk point high-risk article is as follows:
wherein:q 1 ,q 2 ,…,q n -the actual amount of each high risk item present, unit: ton (ton)
Q 1 ,Q 2 ,…,Q n -critical quantity corresponding to each high risk item, unit: ton (ton)
β 1 ，β 2 …,β n -correction coefficients corresponding to each high risk item.
According to the value of M, determining the dangerous level of the dangerous waste of enterprises according to a high-risk object material dangerous index (M) assignment table, and determining the material dangerous index (M) of a dangerous point, wherein the value range is 1-9.
High risk article matter risk index (M) assignment table
。
The more personnel that enter a high risk location, the more likely an accident will occur at that location and the greater the severity of the consequences. Meanwhile, if sudden environment such as leakage or explosion and safety accidents occur in the place, the more the surrounding environment safety sensitive targets are, the greater the risk that the environment and personnel safety are influenced. The inherent risk index of the high-risk site is exposed by personnel in the site Dew index E 1 Site-ambient safety receptor sensitivity E 2 And (5) quantitative aggregation.
Index personnel exposure index of dangerous waste high-risk placeE 1 The number p of the exposure persons in the risk points is measured, and the value range is 1-9.
High risk location personnel exposure index (E 1 ) Assignment table
。
Index environmental safety receptor sensitivity coefficient of dangerous waste high-risk placeE 2 And grading and taking values according to an enterprise emergency risk grading method and a dangerous chemical production device and storage facility external safety protection distance determining method, wherein the range of the values is 1-7.
Environmental safety receptor sensitivity in high risk sites (E) 2 ) Assignment table
。
The high-risk process index correction coefficient of the hazardous wasteK 1 The failure rate correction coefficient K of the facility is monitored and controlled by monitoring 1 The characteristics of the product are characterized in that,
K
1
=1+l
wherein:l-monitoring an average value of failure rates of monitoring facilities in the risk points;
dangerous correction coefficient of dangerous waste high-risk operation indexK 2 The characteristics of the product are characterized in that,
K
2
=1+0.05t
wherein:t-the number of high risk job categories is involved in the risk point.
The environmental safety management of dangerous waste involves more index factors, and is mainly divided into safety management indexes and environmental management indexes, and the selection of evaluation index factors directly determines the rationality and scientificity of the final environmental safety risk assessment result of an enterprise.
Dangerous waste enterprise environment safety management index system
。
The weight is determined by an analytic hierarchy process, the expert is used for comparing index elements of the same hierarchy level in pairs by adopting a 1-9 scale method to obtain a judgment matrix, weighted arithmetic average processing is carried out after consistency test, and the weight value of each index factor is obtained by adopting a power method.
(1) Constructing a judgment matrix
After the hierarchical structure model is determined, the hierarchical relation among index factors can be visually represented, and the relative importance among elements of the same hierarchy can be effectively compared by constructing a judgment matrix. When comparing the importance degree between index factors, 1-9 scale is generally adopted as the basis for judging the measured value.
Criteria and meaning thereof
。
(2) Consistency check
After expert scoring is completed to determine the judgment matrix, the relative weight of each factor in the index model can be calculated, and the specific steps are as follows:
1) Normalizing the judgment matrix:
2) Summing the judgment matrix row vectors:
3) Will beVector normalization can obtain weights:
4) Calculating the maximum eigenvalue lambda max ：
5) Calculate the consistency ratio CR, verify if it passes the one-time check:
wherein:
RIthe random consistency index is obtained according to the order table look-up of the judgment matrix.
Random consistency index RI
。
When the consistency ratio isCR<0.1, the degree of inconsistency of the representation matrix is within the allowable range, and the consistency test is passed; when the consistency ratio isCR≥At 0.1, it is explained that the factor importance comparison contradicts, the judgment matrix needs to be corrected, and the consistency ratio is calculated again.
(3) Calculating index weights
Inviting 5-bit safety and environmental protection obtaining deep specialists to score importance of index factors of each layer in an index system to obtain a judgment matrix, recovering data, and gathering after geometric average treatment to obtain a comprehensive judgment matrix as follows:
A-B judgment matrix
。
B 1 -C judgment matrix
。
B 2 -C judgment matrix
。
To judge matrix B 1 For example, matrix B can be calculated using a formula 1 -Cmax feature root is lambda max = 9.0936. Consistency check of the judgment matrix is performed by calculating a consistency index CI:
environmental safety receptor sensitivity in high risk sites (E) 2 ) Assignment table
Ri=1.45 can be obtained and,
=0.0081 < 0.01, so matrix B 1 -C passes a one-time test.
Through calculation, other judgment matrixes pass one-time inspection.
And finally obtaining the weight of each index by using a analytic hierarchy process.
All index weight summarization of dangerous waste environment safety management system
。
Fuzzy evaluation
(1) Determining membership
The membership degree determining process is to determine a number between 0 and 1 to represent the membership degree of the evaluation object to the evaluation set, and the study selects a fuzzy statistical method to determine the membership degree, wherein the fuzzy statistical method can quantitatively process qualitative evaluation indexes and quantify the qualitative evaluation indexes into specific scores. A questionnaire about evaluation index factors needs to be designed in advance, a plurality of experts are invited to be combined with the site to perform actual evaluation, and then the data are recovered to calculate membership values of the index factors, wherein the calculation formula is as follows:
。
(2) Establishing a management index system evaluation set
According to the requirements of the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation process and the constructed hazardous waste environment safety risk management index system, the comprehensive risk evaluation indexes of the hazardous waste enterprises are classified into five grades according to the actual conditions of the hazardous waste enterprises:
，
its corresponding score and rank parameter vector are as follows:
evaluation set description
。
(3) Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation
The multi-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method mainly aims at an index system with more risk factors or levels, the method firstly carries out comprehensive evaluation on each index factor of a target layer in a level model, and carries out comprehensive evaluation on each index factor of an upper layer in turn according to the same principle until the factors at the highest level obtain a total comprehensive evaluation result, the research adopts a two-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, and the fuzzy evaluation process is as follows:
1) First order fuzzy comprehensive evaluation
Assume that for the lowest level index factoriClass 1jEach element is evaluated, wherein the membership degree of the evaluation object to the evaluation set is that。
The single factor evaluation matrix for constructing the first-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation is as follows:
combining the index weights to obtain the firstiFirst-order fuzzy comprehensive evaluation set of class index factorsB i The method comprises the following steps:
。
2) Two-stage fuzzy comprehensive evaluation
The single factor evaluation matrix of the second-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation should be a first-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation matrix:
the secondary fuzzy comprehensive evaluation set is as follows:
wherein, the liquid crystal display device comprises a liquid crystal display device,represents a second-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation index, namely, when the evaluation object is evaluated according to all various factors, the evaluation is concentratedkMembership of individual elements.
And after the secondary fuzzy comprehensive evaluation is completed, the membership of each evaluation grade and the grade parameter vector of the comment set are aggregated, so that the score of the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation is obtained.
Obtaining a unit risk frequency index G according to the fuzzy evaluation score, wherein the reciprocal of the score is used as a unit risk frequency index quantization value, and the formula is as follows:
G=100/v
wherein: G-Unit risk frequency index;
v-hazardous waste normalized environmental safety management fuzzy evaluation score.
Examples: a typical hazardous waste management unit is selected as an example, the environmental security risk value of each risk point of the management unit is calculated, the comprehensive risk evaluation grade is obtained, and targeted grading measures are provided, so that the environmental security management of enterprises is enhanced, and the grading classification management and control level is improved.
The hazardous waste management enterprise (hereinafter referred to as an enterprise A) mainly performs comprehensive treatment and resource utilization of industrial and industrial hazardous waste, and comprises recycling of waste mineral oil, incineration and harmless treatment of hazardous waste, recycling of waste organic solvents, biochemical treatment of waste liquid, treatment and renovation of waste packaging iron barrels and the like.
The enterprise A is divided into dangerous waste incineration disposal units, waste oil barrel remanufacturing areas, waste liquid workshops, lead-zinc workshops, organic solvent workshops, dangerous waste temporary storage rooms and other dangerous units.
According to the technical scheme, the overall arrangement and the unit division principle of the hazardous waste management enterprise of the enterprise A, an environmental safety risk unit is determined, and meanwhile, the possibly-induced environmental safety accident point of the unit is analyzed to serve as a risk point.
Based on the risk points, the accident cause mechanism is analyzed, the serious accident result is evaluated, and the main environmental safety risk units and risk points of the enterprise A are shown in the table.
Main risk unit and risk point
。
And obtaining the risk value of each environmental security risk unit of the enterprise according to the checking of the related data of the enterprise, the results of on-site investigation and analogy investigation, and the characteristics of the enterprise security production and pollution control.
In order to highlight the important areas, key posts and dangerous places of the environmental safety risk of the hazardous waste enterprise, the risk analysis calculation is specifically performed on the incineration disposal units with relatively high risks of the enterprise.
According to the risk point division of the incineration unit, 3 risk points of fire accidents, explosion accidents and poisoning are used as the key points of inherent risk identification and evaluation.
(1) Fire accident risk point
1) High risk equipment facility
The intrinsic safety level of equipment and facilities in the incineration workshop is used as an assignment basis to represent the technical measure level of equipment and facilities in production equipment and facilities at risk points of fire accidents to prevent accidents. High-risk equipment such as an internal kiln, a secondary combustion furnace, a waste heat boiler, a quenching tower, a bag-type dust collector, a spray washing tower and the like in an incineration workshop is stable to operate at present, but is corroded and worn to different degrees, because each safety interlock is normally put into use and is provided with an SIS system, an emergency cutting device and the like, in general, operators have misoperation, accidents or injuries can not happen, the equipment, facilities and the technical process have the function of automatically preventing unsafe behaviors of the operators, misoperation of the operators can be automatically prevented, the intrinsic safety level is high, and the operators are assigned according to 'error safety', so that the operators are takenh s =1.3。
2) High risk article
The high-risk articles of the fire accident risk points are mainly oil substances (oil-containing hazardous wastes such as diesel oil, waste mineral oil and the like ignited by an incinerator). And (3) taking the M value of the product of the critical quantity and the actual quantity of the high-risk articles and the dangerous characteristic correction coefficient of the corresponding articles as a grading index, and determining the M value according to the grading result.
Wherein the critical amounts and the actual maximum amounts of the high risk substance standard are specified in the table below.
High-risk substances involved, critical quantity, actual maximum stock
From the above table data, calculated m=0.282+0.1+0.6=0.982, corresponding to the high risk article substance risk index (M) assignment table, take m=1.
3) High risk location
The high-risk place of the fire accident risk point is mainly an incineration workshop. With "personnel risk exposure (E 1 ) "" high risk site environmental safety receptor sensitivity (E) 2 ) "as a characteristic value.
According to the accident risk simulation calculation result, the number p of the exposure people in the risk points is used for measuring, and all the people in the fire accident influence range, including 16 people in total in each post such as a driller, a grabbing station, a feeding station, a control room, a boiler, a leading station and the like, are measured, so that the number p of the personnel in the fire accident influence range in the incineration workshop is between 10 and 29 people, and the personnel exposure index (E 1 ) Assignment table, take E 1 =5。
The enterprise A does not relate to military forbidden areas, military management areas and related national security areas; the distances between the dangerous waste device and the storage facility and an external safety protection target meet the requirements of criticizing and recovering the file protection distance; grading and taking values according to the environmental safety receptor sensitivity (E) of high-risk places by referring to the enterprise emergency risk grading method and the dangerous chemical production device and storage facility external safety protection distance determining method 2 ) Assignment table, take E 2 =5。
4) High risk process
The hazardous waste incineration process of the unit is a fire accident risk point high-risk process. The characteristic values of the technological process of the technology relating to inflammable and explosive substances are pressure, liquid level, temperature, smoke alarming, linkage failure rate and the like. Monitoring the failure rate correction coefficient K of the facility by monitoring 1 Characterization, relative technology is common, mature, each characteristic value has low failure rate, l=0.01 is taken, and the formula is adoptedK 1 =1+l，K 1 =1+0.01=1.01。
5) High risk operation
The high-risk operation related to the incineration disposal unit is identified by combining the definitions of special operation, special operation and special equipment operation in the special operation personnel safety technical training examination management regulation, the special operation safety standard of the chemical production unit, the bulletin of the special equipment administrative approval related matters of the market supervision administration, the special equipment operation, the pressure vessel operation, the safety accessory maintenance operation, the blind plate plug-out operation, the hoisting operation, the sampling test operation, the vehicle transportation and the inspection operation, and the high-risk operation related to the incineration disposal unit are counted, and the live fire operation, the limited space operation, the high-place operation, the temporary electricity operation, the special equipment operation, the pressure vessel operation, the safety accessory maintenance operation, the blind plate plug-out operation, the hoisting operation and the sampling test operation are countedChecking 12 kinds according to the formulaK 2 =1+0.05t，K 2 =1+0.05*12=1.6。
6) Risk point is fixed with a risk index
The method comprises the steps of polymerizing a high-risk equipment risk index, a high-risk article risk index, a high-risk place personnel exposure index, a high-risk place environment safety receptor sensitivity index and correction coefficients of a high-risk process and a high-risk operation to obtain an inherent risk index of a fire accident risk point of an incineration disposal unit, wherein the calculation result is as follows:
h 1 =1.3×1×5×5×1.01×1.6=52.52。
(2) Explosion accident risk point
According to the process for measuring and calculating the inherent risk indexes of the fire accident risk points, measuring and calculating the inherent risk indexes of the explosion accident risk points, wherein the result is as follows:
h 2 =1.3×1×5×5×1.01×1.6=52.52。
(3) Risk point of poisoning accident
According to the process for measuring and calculating the inherent risk indexes of the fire accident risk points, the inherent risk indexes of the toxic accident risk points are measured and calculated, and the result is as follows:
H 3 =1.3×1×3×5×1.01×1.6=31.51。
(4) Index of inherent risk of unit
The unit area is provided with a plurality of risk points, and the inherent risk indexes of the unit are weighted accumulated values of the exposure indexes of the personnel in the places with the risk indexes fixed at the plurality of risk points according to the principle of the safety control theory.
The unit inherent risk index H is defined as follows:
wherein:h i -an i-th risk point risk index within the unit;
E i ， -an i-th risk point yard personnel exposure index within the unit;
F-a cumulative value of the exposure index of personnel at each risk point location in the unit;
n-risk points in a cell.
There are 3 risk points in the unit area, and according to the principle of the safety control theory, the inherent risk index of the unit is the weighted accumulated value of the exposure indexes of the personnel in the place with the inherent risk index of the 3 risk points.
According to the formulaObtaining E 1 =5，E 2 =5，E 3 =3，E 4 =2，E 5 =2，F=13；
Unit inherent risk index: h= 52.52 × (5/13) +52.52 × (5/13) +31.51× (3/13) = 47.67.
Unit risk frequency index quantification
(1) Determining single factor membership
In order to obtain the dangerous waste environmental security risk level evaluation result, 10 senior specialists are invited to participate in filling out the questionnaire with the determined membership of the single factors. Summarizing the evaluation results, and performing normalization treatment to obtain a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation matrix shown in the following table:
evaluation index membership degree of enterprise environment security risk management system
(2) Evaluation procedure at each level
1) First order fuzzy evaluation
Combining with membership evaluation matrix, developing first-level comprehensive fuzzy evaluation to obtain criterion layer B 1 Each lower level index (C 1 ，C 2 ，C 3 ，C 4 ，C 5 ，C 6 ，C 7 ，C 8 ，C 9 ) Structured fuzzy comprehensive evaluation matrixAnd then the index factor of the layer C is relative to the index factor of the layer B 1 Weight of (2)Weight->Matrix: [0.0612,0.0628,0.1130,0.1908,0.1424,0.1492,0.1846,0.0666,0.0568]Multiplying the evaluation matrix to obtain B 1 The fuzzy comprehensive evaluation result of nine index factors of the C layer>：
。
And (3) the same principle:
and obtaining a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation result of the criterion layer according to the fuzzy comprehensive operation result of each index of the target layer.
First-order fuzzy comprehensive evaluation result
。
2) Second order fuzzy evaluation
Similarly, an evaluation matrix is obtained according to the first-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation resultAnd the weight value of the B-layer index factor relative to the A-layer index +.>The two-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation result can be calculated:
。
3) Fuzzy evaluation result
According to the criterion layer evaluation result calculated by the second-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, the membership degree of the evaluation set corresponding to each evaluation level in the enterprise A management system can be obtained, and finally, the evaluation score of the enterprise A environmental safety management level can be obtained as follows:
。
the unit risk frequency index G is: g=1.42.
Aggregating the unit risk frequency index G with the unit inherent risk index (H) according to the formulaObtaining an initial high-risk safety risk value R of the hazardous waste incineration disposal unit 0 =67.69。
Real risk dynamic correction index real-time correction risk point inherent risk index (h) and unit initial high-risk safety risk (R) 0 ）。
Mainly comprises a high-risk monitoring characteristic index (K 3 ) Accident potential index (K) 4 ) Index of transit cycle (K) 5 ) Special period indexes, high risk internet of things indexes, natural environment indexes and the like.
(1) The risk point is fixed with a dynamic risk index monitoring index correction value (h d ）
High risk dynamic monitoring characteristic index alarm signal correction coefficient (K) 3 ) And dynamically correcting the risk index of the fixed risk point.
Correction of coefficients (K) with high risk monitoring characteristic indices 3 ) Correcting the inherent risk index (h) of the risk point.
The on-line monitoring project mainly comprises toxic and harmful gas alarm, combustible gas alarm and the like, and real-time alarm is divided into three grades of primary alarm (low alarm), secondary alarm (medium alarm) and tertiary alarm (high alarm). When 3 primary alarms are sent out by the online monitoring item, 1 secondary alarm is recorded; and when the monitored item reaches 2 secondary alarms, recording 1 tertiary alarm.
Therefore, the weights of the first, second and third-level alarms are respectively set to be 1, 3 and 6, the coefficients after normalization processing are respectively 0.1, 0.3 and 0.6, and the high-risk monitoring characteristic index correction coefficient formula is described as follows:
K
3
=1+0.1a
1
+0.3a
2
+0.6a
3
wherein:K 3 -high risk dynamic monitoring characteristic index correction coefficients;
a 1 -number of real-time primary alarm (low alarm) items;
a 2 -number of real-time secondary alarm (middle alarm) items;
a 3 -number of real-time three-level alarm (high alarm) items.
The actual alarming times are dynamic data, according to the actual conditions of enterprises, 1 primary alarming, 1 secondary alarming and 1 tertiary alarming are calculated temporarily, and the calculation result is as follows: k (K) 3 =2.00, i.e. h d1 =105.04，h d2 =105.04，h d3 =63.02。
(2) Dynamic correction value of unit inherent risk index (H D ）
In the unit area, there are several risk points, and according to the principle of safety control theory, the dynamic correction value (H D ) Dynamic monitoring index correction value (h) for inherent risk indexes of a plurality of risk points di ) And the location personnel exposure index weighted cumulative value.
3 risk points h in dangerous waste incineration disposal unit area d1 =105.04，h d2 =105.04，h d3 =63.02。
Dynamic correction value (H) according to unit inherent risk index D ) Formula (VI)
Wherein:H D dynamic correction value of unit inherent risk index
h di The ith risk point in the unit is fixedly provided with a dynamic risk index monitoring index correction value
E i -an i-th risk point site personnel exposure index within the unit
F-cumulative value of personnel exposure index at each risk point location in a unit
nIntra-unit risk points
Obtaining: h D =131.3×（5/13）+131.3×（5/13）+78.78×（3/13）=95.34。
(3) Unit initial high-risk safety risk correction value (R 0d ）
Aggregating the unit high risk management frequency (G) with the intrinsic risk index: according to the initial high-risk security risk correction value (R 0d ) The formula (i) is that,
wherein:R 0d -unit initial high-risk security risk correction value
G-unit risk management frequency index value
H D Dynamic correction value of unit inherent risk index
R is calculated out 0d =135.38。
(4) Unit reality risk (R) N ）
The accident potential number and the accident potential level of the enterprise can reflect the safety management level and the state of the enterprise to a great extent. The hidden danger of the actual accident is dynamic data, the hidden danger of the enterprise is checked on the spot investigation day, 14 items of common environment and hidden danger are found in the unit, the defects of spot protection measures and emergency facilities are mainly overcome, the leakage problem of environmental risk related substances is solved, and the hidden danger of the important accident is avoided.
Correction coefficient K for general accident potential 4 Assignment table
Taking i=14, and correcting the coefficient K according to the general accident potential 4 Assignment table, get K 4 =1.3, according to the unit reality security risk (R N ) Formula (VI)
Wherein:R 0d -a unit initial high-risk security risk correction value;
K 4 accident potential index correction coefficient
Obtaining R N =175.81。
(5) Unit reality risk classification
The environmental security risk level of the dangerous waste is divided into level I, level II, level III and level IV to form a unit security risk classification standard,
And determining that the actual high-risk safety risk level of the hazardous waste incineration disposal unit is II, and the early warning signal is orange.
And (3) enterprise risk aggregation, namely identifying high-risk factors from aspects of high-risk articles, high-risk processes, high-risk equipment, high-risk places, high-risk operations and the like based on accident risk points of all environmental safety risk units, calculating actual risk values of all risk units through a five-high risk assessment model, and summarizing risk assessment of all units of an enterprise A.
The enterprise overall risk (R) is determined by the maximum value Max (R Ni ) And determining that the overall risk level of the enterprise is classified according to the unit security risk classification standard.
Among the risk units of the enterprise A, the high-risk safety risk value of the hazardous waste incineration disposal unit is the largest, so the overall risk value of the enterprise is 175.81, the grade is II, and the orange early warning is realized. So the overall risk level of the enterprise A is II, and the early warning signal is orange.
The above embodiments are only for illustrating the technical solution of the present invention, and are not limiting; the technical scheme of the invention can be modified, supplemented or changed within the technical conception scope of the invention, and the technical scheme belongs to the protection scope of the invention.
Claims (3)
1. The dangerous waste environment safety risk identification and assessment method is characterized by comprising the following steps:
step 1: collecting typical accident cases and field investigation, identifying accident risk factors, recording risk points with environmental potential safety hazards, and forming a dangerous waste enterprise safety and environmental risk identification list;
step 2: the method comprises the steps of determining an index value range or a risk index quantification result from evaluation indexes screened in inherent risks, management levels and dynamic correction, and dividing environmental security risk levels;
the evaluation indexes of the inherent risk screening comprise a high-risk object index of the hazardous waste, a high-risk place index of the hazardous waste, a high-risk equipment index of the hazardous waste, a high-risk process index of the hazardous waste and a high-risk operation index of the hazardous waste;
the high-risk article index refers to dangerous chemicals in dangerous wastes and auxiliary materials;
the high-risk place index of the hazardous waste refers to places where safety accidents and sudden environmental events occur in the process of collecting the hazardous waste in the disposal and utilization process;
the high-risk equipment index of the hazardous waste refers to equipment which has explosion leakage risk or high energy in the hazardous waste generation transportation, identification, treatment and utilization stage and causes the unexpected release of the energy;
The dangerous waste high-risk process index refers to a process of safety or leakage accidents caused by the change of the state and attribute of the process in the dangerous waste disposal or utilization process;
the high-risk operation index of the hazardous waste refers to operation of safety accidents and environmental pollution accidents caused by misoperation;
the evaluation indexes of the management level screening comprise unit risk frequency indexes; the unit risk frequency index is measured by the safety control level of the enterprise hazardous waste environment; determining evaluation indexes from two dimensions of safety management and environment management, calculating index weights by using a hierarchical method, and calculating enterprise risk management and control standardization scores by combining a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method so as to quantify unit risk frequency indexes;
the evaluation index of the dynamic correction screening comprises a monitoring characteristic index.
2. The method for identifying and evaluating the environmental safety risk of hazardous waste according to claim 1, wherein the method for calculating the inherent risk uses multiplication and aggregation to obtain an inherent risk value, and the risk-point-fixed risk index h is defined as
h=h
s
ME
1
E
2
K
1
K
2
Wherein:h s -an inherent risk index of the hazardous waste high risk equipment index;
M-a hazardous waste high risk item matter index risk index;
E 1 -index personnel exposure index for high risk sites of hazardous waste;
E 2 -index environmental safety receptor sensitivity coefficient of dangerous waste high-risk places;
K 1 -hazardous waste high risk processIndex correction coefficients;
K 2 -dangerous correction factors of dangerous waste high-risk operation indexes;
the inherent risk index of the high-risk equipment index of the dangerous wasteh s The value range is 1.0-1.7;
the dangerous waste high-risk article material index risk indexMDetermined by the fire, explosion, toxicity and energy characteristics of the high-risk articles at the risk points,
calculating the ratio q of the existing quantity of dangerous waste in the factory boundary to the critical quantity of each pure substance in the identification of the major dangerous source of dangerous chemical, and the m value of the product of the dangerous characteristic correction coefficients of the corresponding objects as a grading index, and determining according to the grading resultMThe value range is 1-9;
the calculation method of the m value is as follows:
wherein:q 1 ,q 2 ,…,q n -the actual amount of each high risk item present, unit: ton (ton)
Q 1 ,Q 2 ,…,Q n -critical quantity corresponding to each high risk item, unit: ton (ton)
β 1 ，β 2 …,β n -correction factors corresponding to each high-risk item
Index personnel exposure index of dangerous waste high-risk place E 1 The number p of the exposure people in the risk point is measured, and the value range is 1-9;
index environmental safety receptor sensitivity coefficient of dangerous waste high-risk placeE 2 Grading and taking values according to an enterprise emergency risk grading method and a dangerous chemical production device and storage facility external safety protection distance determining method, wherein the range of the values is 1-7;
the high-risk process index correction coefficient of the hazardous wasteK 1 The failure rate correction coefficient K of the facility is monitored and controlled by monitoring 1 The characteristics of the product are characterized in that,
K
1
=1+l
wherein:l-monitoring an average value of failure rates of monitoring facilities in the risk points;
dangerous correction coefficient of dangerous waste high-risk operation indexK 2 The characteristics of the product are characterized in that,
K
2
=1+0.05t
wherein:t-the number of high risk job categories is involved in the risk point.
3. The method for identifying and evaluating the safety risk of the hazardous waste environment according to claim 1, wherein the unit risk frequency index comprises risk frequency index selection, index weight determined by an analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy evaluation;
the risk frequency index selection comprises a target layer A, a criterion layer B and an index layer C;
the target layer a comprises an environmental security management index system a,
criterion layer B includes security management index B 1 Environmental management index B 2 ；
The safety management index B 1 Security administration or security manager C comprising an index layer C 1 Safety management system C 2 Safety education and training C 3 Hidden trouble shooting and controlling C 4 Dangerous source identification and control C 5 Safety protection facility management C 6 Maintenance and repairDangerous work management C 7 Emergency rescue C 8 Safety production administrative punishment C 9 ；
The environment management index B 2 Pollution environmental control liability system C including index layer C 10 Management plan and account system C 11 Pollution discharge license system C 12 Transfer System C 13 Environmental monitoring C 14 Run-time environment management C 15 Business training C 16 Environmental emergency plan C 17 Environment-friendly administrative punishment situation C 18 ；
The analytic hierarchy process determines index weights:
the expert compares index elements of the same level in pairs by adopting a 1-9 scale method to obtain a judgment matrix, carries out weighted arithmetic average treatment after consistency test, and adopts a power method to obtain the weight value of each index factor;
the weights of the indexes are obtained by using an analytic hierarchy process as follows:
b layer is relative to A layer, safety management index B 1 Weight is 0.5, environmental management index B 2 The weight is 0.5;
layer C relative to layer B
Security administration or security manager C 1 The weight is 0.0612;
safety management system C 2 The weight is 0.0628;
safety education and training C 3 The weight is 0.113;
hidden trouble shooting and controlling C 4 The weight is 0.1908;
dangerous source identification and control C 5 The weight is 0.1424;
safety protection facility management C 6 The weight is 0.1492;
maintenance and dangerous operation management C 7 The weight is 0.1846;
emergency rescue C 8 The weight is 0.0666;
safety production administrative punishment C 9 The weight is 0.0568;
pollution environmental control responsibility system C 10 The weight is 0.0926;
management planStanding book system C 11 The weight is 0.0956;
pollution discharge license system C 12 The weight is 0.101;
transfer regime C 13 The weight is 0.1286;
environment monitoring C 14 The weight is 0.1552;
run-time environment management C 15 The weight is 0.0994;
business training C 16 The weight is 0.1048;
environmental emergency plan C 17 The weight is 0.1022;
environment-friendly administrative punishment situation C 18 Weight is 0.0928
Layer C relative to layer A
Security administration or security manager C 1 The weight is 0.0306;
safety management system C 2 The weight is 0.0314;
safety education and training C 3 The weight is 0.0565;
hidden trouble shooting and controlling C 4 The weight is 0.0954;
dangerous source identification and control C 5 The weight is 0.0712;
safety protection facility management C 6 The weight is 0.0746;
maintenance and dangerous operation management C 7 The weight is 0.0923;
emergency rescue C 8 The weight is 0.0333;
Safety production administrative punishment C 9 The weight is 0.0284;
pollution environmental control responsibility system C 10 The weight is 0.0463;
management plan and account system C 11 The weight is 0.0478;
pollution discharge license system C 12 The weight is 0.0505;
transfer regime C 13 The weight is 0.0643;
environment monitoring C 14 The weight is 0.0776;
run-time environment management C 15 The weight is 0.0497;
business training C 16 Weight is 0.0524；
Environmental emergency plan C 17 The weight is 0.0511;
environment-friendly administrative punishment situation C 18 The weight is 0.0464;
the fuzzy evaluation comprises determining membership degree, establishing a management index system evaluation set and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation;
determining a number to represent the attribution degree of the evaluation object to the evaluation set in the process of determining the membership degree, namely, determining the number between 0 and 1; the calculation formula is as follows:
the management index system evaluation set is established to divide the comprehensive risk evaluation index of the hazardous waste enterprises into five grades according to the risk frequency index,
its corresponding score and rank parameter vector are as follows:
the optimal corresponding score is 90-100, and the grade vector parameter is 95;
the good correspondence score is 70-89, and the grade vector parameter is 80;
corresponding scores 60-69 and grade vector parameters 65;
the score value is generally 40-59, and the grade vector parameter is 50;
the difference value is less than 40, and the grade vector parameter is 20;
The fuzzy comprehensive evaluation comprises a first-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and a second-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation;
after the secondary fuzzy comprehensive evaluation is completed, the membership of each evaluation grade and the grade parameter vector of the comment set are aggregated to obtain a fuzzy evaluation score;
obtaining a unit risk frequency index G according to the fuzzy evaluation score, wherein the reciprocal of the score is used as a unit risk frequency index quantization value, and the formula is as follows:
G=100/v
wherein: G-Unit risk frequency index;
v-hazardous waste normalized environmental safety management fuzzy evaluation score.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202310561947.9A CN116629607A (en) | 2023-05-18 | 2023-05-18 | Dangerous waste environment safety risk identification and assessment method |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202310561947.9A CN116629607A (en) | 2023-05-18 | 2023-05-18 | Dangerous waste environment safety risk identification and assessment method |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN116629607A true CN116629607A (en) | 2023-08-22 |
Family
ID=87616376
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202310561947.9A Pending CN116629607A (en) | 2023-05-18 | 2023-05-18 | Dangerous waste environment safety risk identification and assessment method |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN116629607A (en) |
Cited By (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN117078023A (en) * | 2023-10-17 | 2023-11-17 | 苏州科尔珀恩机械科技有限公司 | Kiln fault risk assessment method based on big data analysis |
| CN117078024A (en) * | 2023-10-17 | 2023-11-17 | 南京进唯智能科技有限公司 | Dangerous waste quantity change detection system and method based on video analysis |
| CN117495361A (en) * | 2024-01-02 | 2024-02-02 | 江苏省环境工程技术有限公司 | Method and system for screening general industrial solid waste by key management |
| CN117495361B (en) * | 2024-01-02 | 2024-04-26 | 江苏省环境工程技术有限公司 | Method and system for screening general industrial solid waste by key management |
-
2023
- 2023-05-18 CN CN202310561947.9A patent/CN116629607A/en active Pending
Cited By (6)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN117078023A (en) * | 2023-10-17 | 2023-11-17 | 苏州科尔珀恩机械科技有限公司 | Kiln fault risk assessment method based on big data analysis |
| CN117078024A (en) * | 2023-10-17 | 2023-11-17 | 南京进唯智能科技有限公司 | Dangerous waste quantity change detection system and method based on video analysis |
| CN117078023B (en) * | 2023-10-17 | 2023-12-22 | 苏州科尔珀恩机械科技有限公司 | Kiln fault risk assessment method based on big data analysis |
| CN117078024B (en) * | 2023-10-17 | 2024-02-09 | 南京进唯智能科技有限公司 | Dangerous waste quantity change detection system and method based on video analysis |
| CN117495361A (en) * | 2024-01-02 | 2024-02-02 | 江苏省环境工程技术有限公司 | Method and system for screening general industrial solid waste by key management |
| CN117495361B (en) * | 2024-01-02 | 2024-04-26 | 江苏省环境工程技术有限公司 | Method and system for screening general industrial solid waste by key management |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Zhang et al. | Root causes of coal mine accidents: Characteristics of safety culture deficiencies based on accident statistics | |
| CN116629607A (en) | Dangerous waste environment safety risk identification and assessment method | |
| CN110163500B (en) | Fuzzy fault tree-based oil storage tank area fire explosion risk assessment method | |
| CN104715163B (en) | A kind of buried oil-gas pipeline methods of risk assessment | |
| CN104657810B (en) | A kind of Petrochemical Wharf tank area fire explosion methods of risk assessment | |
| CN108345986B (en) | Dynamic quantitative assessment method for chemical hazard source | |
| CN108564284B (en) | Gas detector site selection calculation method based on cost and income | |
| CN105825320A (en) | Petrochemical enterprise hazard-bearing body vulnerability assessment method | |
| CN113360830B (en) | Major safety risk identification and assessment method for metal smelting enterprises | |
| CN101763589A (en) | Safety management method and system based on dynamic quantitative accident risk prediction | |
| CN105678446A (en) | Method used for enterprise safety production risk early warning | |
| Kang et al. | A new risk evaluation method for oil storage tank zones based on the theory of two types of hazards | |
| CN112633553B (en) | Gas pipeline-hazardous chemical enterprise coupling hidden danger identification and risk assessment method and system | |
| Hao et al. | Hazard identification, risk assessment and management of industrial system: Process safety in mining industry | |
| CN113515720A (en) | Major safety risk identification and evaluation method for dangerous chemical enterprises | |
| CN106055803B (en) | Consider the oil refining apparatus gas detecting and alarming instrument Optimization Method for Location-Selection of conditional risk value | |
| CN113268880B (en) | Dust explosion major safety risk identification and evaluation method | |
| CN111507603A (en) | Method and system for evaluating current environmental risk situation of in-production enterprise | |
| CN113935571A (en) | Gas station security risk assessment grading method and system | |
| Chen et al. | Knowledge graph improved dynamic risk analysis method for behavior-based safety management on a construction site | |
| CN113344360A (en) | Method for quantifying major safety risk of metal and nonmetal underground mine | |
| Jamshidi Solukloei | Identification of safe assembly points in emergencies in a gas refinery of the South Pars Gas complex using Fuzzy logic model | |
| CN113344362A (en) | Major safety risk index metering model | |
| Adjiski et al. | Fire risk assessment and computer simulation of fire scenario in underground mines | |
| Zhao et al. | Risk assessment of mine shaft construction projects based on risk matrix |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination |