KR20210104502A - System for checking performance of risk management plan - Google Patents

Abstract

According to the embodiments of the present invention, an implementation check of a risk management plan can be efficiently performed. Therefore, an occurrence of a chemical accident can be effectively prevented and appropriately dealt with. Provided is a performance checking device for a risk management plan. The performance checking device for a risk management plan includes a performance check unit for receiving and processing information required to check a performance of the risk management plan from a user to check the performance of the risk management plan. And a level of the performance of the risk management plan is evaluated according to a performance check evaluation table including evaluation items, scoring criteria, and an evaluation method. However, at least one of the evaluation items, the scoring criteria, and the evaluation method may be applied differently depending on whether or not a chemical accident has occurred for a certain period.

Description

SYSTEM FOR CHECKING PERFORMANCE OF RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN

The present invention relates to a risk management plan implementation check device.

In the Chemical Substances Control Act, 97 types of hazardous chemical substances that are highly likely to cause a chemical accident or that are likely to cause great damage in the event of an accident are designated as accident-preparation substances, and a risk management plan for workplaces that handle the substances in excess of the specified quantity regulations to be implemented.

The main purpose of the risk management plan system is to effectively respond to accidents and minimize damage through the prevention of chemical accidents through the safety management system, establishment of internal and external emergency response plans at the workplace, provision of prior information to residents, and an organic cooperation system with related organizations. In order to effectively operate such a risk management plan system, it is necessary to check and check whether the risk management plan has been implemented.

The present invention provides a device capable of checking the implementation of a risk management plan.

Other objects of the present invention will become apparent from the following detailed description and accompanying drawings.

The risk management plan implementation check apparatus according to the embodiments of the present invention includes a performance check unit for receiving and processing information required to check the implementation of the risk management plan from the user to check the implementation of the risk management plan.

The level of implementation of the risk management plan is evaluated according to an implementation check evaluation table including evaluation items, scoring criteria, and evaluation methods, and at least one of the evaluation items, the scoring criteria, and the evaluation method is the occurrence of a chemical accident for a certain period of time. It may be applied differently depending on the presence or absence.

The above evaluation items, the above scoring criteria, and the above evaluation method are applied separately at Level 1 and Level 2, and Level 1 corresponds to a case in which no chemical accident has occurred in the past 5 years and there are no residents within the range of impact caused by the accident. , the second level may correspond to a case that does not correspond to the first level.

The risk management plan implementation check device is connected to the implementation check unit and stores information (input information) input from the user and information (process information) generated by processing the input information by the implementation check unit It may further include a storage unit.

The input information may include information on the workplace, chemical substances possessed by the workplace, a risk management plan, and a performance check evaluation table, and the processing information is a result of an interview with a target for implementing the risk management plan, and the implementation of the risk management plan It may include information regarding the results of reviews of relevant records, and the results of assessment of the level of performance.

The implementation check unit includes an interview means for conducting an interview with a person subject to implementation of the risk management plan, a record review means for reviewing records related to implementation of the risk management plan, and implementation of the risk management plan by means of the interview and review of the records It may include a means of evaluating the level of performance for evaluating the level.

The performance level evaluation may include evaluation of internal activities of the workplace and evaluation of activities outside the workplace.

The timing of the next implementation check may be determined according to the result of the evaluation of the implementation level.

The interview means may evaluate the degree of understanding of the target person for the implementation of the risk management plan.

The implementation-related record may include whether the risk management plan is implemented or not, the composition of the implementation inspection team of the implementation target, and the implementation result of the implementation target.

According to the embodiments of the present invention, it is possible to efficiently perform the implementation check of the risk management plan. Thereby, the occurrence of a chemical accident can be effectively prevented, and the occurrence of a chemical accident can be appropriately dealt with.

1 shows an apparatus for checking implementation of a risk management plan according to an embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 2 shows the configuration of the implementation inspection unit of the risk management plan implementation inspection apparatus of FIG. 1 .
3 and 4 show an evaluation table including evaluation items for checking the implementation of the risk management plan according to an embodiment of the present invention.
5 shows an example of detailed evaluation contents of an interview during a risk management plan implementation check.
6 shows an example of detailed evaluation contents of record review and on-site investigation during the risk management plan implementation check.
7 and 8 show an evaluation table including evaluation items for checking the implementation of a risk management plan according to another embodiment of the present invention.
9 to 12 show examples of screens displayed on the display unit of the risk management plan implementation inspection device.
13 shows a risk management plan implementation check system according to an embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 14 shows the configuration of the user client of FIG. 13 .
15 shows a risk management plan implementation check method according to an embodiment of the present invention.

Hereinafter, the present invention will be described in detail through examples. Objects, features and advantages of the present invention will be easily understood through the following examples. The present invention is not limited to the embodiments described herein, and may be embodied in other forms. The embodiments introduced herein are provided so that the disclosed content can be thorough and complete, and the spirit of the present invention can be sufficiently conveyed to those of ordinary skill in the art to which the present invention pertains. Therefore, the present invention should not be limited by the following examples.

The term "user" as used herein includes "operator", "manager", and "implementation checker" as a person who uses the risk management plan implementation check system and implementation check method according to embodiments of the present invention. “Businessman” means a person, legal entity, etc., who manufactures, uses, processes, and/or controls a chemical substance, and “manager” is a person who legally and administratively regulates, inspects, and/or supervises the said chemical substance and the government It means an institution, supervisory authority, etc., and "implementation checker" means a person who checks the implementation of the risk management plan, and means an employee belonging to the "manager" or a person under the control of the "manager". In addition, "place of business" means any place where business activities related to the chemical take place, including facilities that store, store, manufacture, use, and/or process the chemical.

The risk management plan system was introduced along with the off-site impact assessment system to comprehensively manage chemical accidents by considering off-site effects. The ‘self control plan prepared by accident-preparing material handlers’ under the existing Hazardous Chemicals Control Act has been expanded and is now reorganized into the KRMP system under Article 41 of the Chemicals Control Act. The risk management plan system is designed to prevent chemical accidents by establishing a plan for accident prevention and damage minimization of handling facilities and processes in advance when dealing with accident-preparing substances with high fire, explosion, reactivity, or acute toxicity over a certain scale. The purpose of this is to minimize damage to residents and the environment by responding promptly when an accident occurs. If the domestic chemical accident management system was focused on the prevention of chemical accidents before the enforcement of the Chemicals Control Act, the risk management plan system is different from the existing similar systems by expanding the protection target to nearby residents and the surrounding environment and focusing on preparing and responding to chemical accidents. designed to be

The risk management plan system strengthens the obligation to provide information to the public, such as providing residents in the vicinity of the risks necessary for evacuation in the event of an accident and emergency measures in advance, thereby establishing a system in which the local community can jointly respond to chemical accidents. have.

A risk management plan is subject to preparation when handling more than the specified quantity of accident-preparation substances designated as substances with high risk of accidents or expected to cause large accidents. The designated quantity is divided into manufacturing/use quantity and storage/storage quantity. Manufacturing/use quantity refers to the maximum quantity that can be manufactured or used for one year, and storage/storage quantity refers to the maximum quantity that can be stored and stored in storage and storage facilities for accident preparation materials such as storage and storage tanks.

The risk management plan consists of three areas: accident prevention, over-the-counter evaluation, and emergency response. The main contents are shown in Table 1.

[Table 1]

In the field of accident prevention, the list and hazard information of substances to prepare for accidents, the list of substances handling facilities for preparation for accidents, the status of possession of control facilities and equipment, process safety information of substances handling facilities in preparation for accidents, process risk analysis data, process operation procedures and precautions It consists of matters related to the safety management of accident preparation materials, the current status of the operator and workers of the accident preparation material, the chemical accident preparation education and training and self-inspection plan, and other matters related to the safety management of the accident preparation material.

The field of over-the-counter evaluation consists of spill/leak scenarios and emergency action plans in the event of a chemical accident, and identification of residents, structures, crops, and environmental media within the scope of influence in the event of a chemical accident.

The emergency response field consists of an emergency contact system in the event of a chemical accident and a safety management organization such as the person in charge of operation suspension, a dissipation plan for residents in the event of a chemical accident, and an action plan for minimizing, eliminating, and restoring damage from chemical accidents. .

The risk management plan system is divided into three levels (level 1, level 2, and level 3) depending on whether there is an impact outside the workplace, whether accidents have occurred in the past five years, and whether similar systems have been applied in accordance with other laws and regulations.

Level 1 corresponds to a case where no chemical accident has occurred in the past 5 years and there are no residents within the scope of the impact of the accident. Level 2 corresponds to a case that does not fall under Level 1 and is not subject to submission of a similar system under other laws and regulations. do. Level 3 is a case that does not fall under Levels 1 and 2 and is applied to similar systems under other laws.

Unlike the off-site impact assessment, the submission period is not clearly defined for the risk management plan, but the compliance of the risk management plan must be confirmed before the accident preparation material handling facility is operated. Should be. If there is a change in the process or handling amount since the initial submission of the risk management plan, the changed risk management plan must be submitted. Even if there is no change, it is stipulated to resubmit every 5 years, in order to always keep the latest information in consideration of changes in the surrounding environment.

Businesses subject to Level 3 must notify the local community, including local residents, at least once a year in order to guarantee the local community's right to know part of the content of the risk management plan. Businesses that have received the notification of conformity with the risk management plan must provide the local community with a summary of emergency response information, including the name of the accident preparation material, the impact on the human body or the environment if the accident preparation material is leaked to the outside, evacuation methods and first aid measures, etc. Notifications must be made, and even after the initial notification, notification must be made at least once a year. In the event of a cause for change, the change shall be notified within one month.

[Risk Management Plan Implementation Check Device]

1 shows a risk management plan implementation check apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention, and FIG. 2 illustrates the configuration of a implementation check unit of the risk management plan implementation check apparatus of FIG. 1 .

1 and 2 , the risk management plan implementation check device 10 may include a compliance check unit 100 , an information storage unit 200 , a display unit 300 , and a communication unit 400 . The risk management plan implementation check device 10 may communicate with an external device through the communication unit 400 .

The implementation check unit 100 receives information about the risk management plan and processes it to check the implementation of the risk management plan and evaluate the level of implementation. The compliance check unit 100 may include an interview means 110 , a record review means 120 , and a compliance level evaluation means 130 .

The interview means 110 may conduct an interview with the person to whom the risk management plan is implemented. The interview means 110 provides direct questions, such as assessing the level of understanding of the risk management plan of the concerned person, such as the handler, and receives the answer.

The record review means 120 checks whether the workplace is implementing the risk management plan through documented data or records, and presents essential reflections to check the extent to which the relevant matters are complied with.

The implementation level evaluation means 130 evaluates the risk management plan implementation level according to the implementation check evaluation table including specific evaluation items, scoring criteria, evaluation methods, and the like. The performance level evaluation means 130 may derive an evaluation grade by automatically collecting the results of the performance check for the workplace.

The risk management plan system divides the level of preparation of the risk management plan into three stages (level 1, level 2, and level 3) depending on whether there is an impact outside the workplace, whether accidents have occurred in the past 5 years, and whether similar systems have been applied according to other laws and regulations. and the performance check evaluation table can be applied differently depending on the level (level 1, level 2, level 3). The level of implementation of the risk management plan is evaluated according to a performance check evaluation table including evaluation items, scoring criteria, and evaluation methods, and at least one of the evaluation items, the scoring criteria, and the evaluation method is at the level (first level) , 2nd level, 3rd level) can be applied differently.

3 and 4 show an evaluation table including evaluation items for the risk management plan implementation check according to an embodiment of the present invention, and FIG. 5 shows an example of detailed evaluation contents of an interview during the risk management plan implementation check, 6 shows an example of detailed evaluation contents of record review and on-site investigation during the risk management plan implementation check.

Referring to FIGS. 3 to 6 , the implementation check evaluation table includes specific evaluation items, scoring criteria, evaluation methods, etc. for evaluating the level of implementation of the risk management plan.

Based on the contents of the risk management plan, the implementation check evaluation table includes the evaluation of internal activities at the workplace (80 points) and the evaluation of activities outside the workplace (20 points). The evaluation items for internal activities at the workplace were the operability of implementing the risk management plan for understanding and self-verification of the risk management plan system (15 points), and the operability of the emergency response plan for internal and external emergency response plans and emergency measures and follow-up plans, etc. (20 points), the adequacy of chemical accident preparation activities for safety management organization and education and training, and management of control products (25 points), and the appropriateness of chemical accident prevention activities, which are evaluation items for process safety data and safety management plans (25 points) 20 points). Evaluation items for activities outside the workplace include providing and participating in resident information (10 points) and establishing a cooperative system with related organizations (10 points).

The operability of the implementation of the risk management plan (15 points) is the level of understanding of the risk management plan of the business owner (plant manager) (5 points), the level of understanding of the risk management plan of the accident-preparing material handler (5 points), and whether the risk management system is self-confirmed. (5 points). The operability of the emergency response plan (20 points) is the operability of the internal emergency response plan (5 points), the operability of the external emergency response plan (5 points), the operability of the accident scenario first aid plan (5 points), and the It includes the relevance of the recovery plan (5 points). The adequacy of chemical accident preparation activities (25 points) was determined by updating the status of the driver and workers (5 points), the status of emergency contact systems and emergency response organizations (5 points), and education and training for accident-preparing material handlers (5 points), implementation of education and training for environmental safety personnel and professional control personnel (5 points), and management status and ability to use control equipment and supplies (5 points). The adequacy of chemical accident prevention activities (20 points) was measured by updating process safety data (5 points), the management status of fixed control facilities (safety devices), etc. (5 points), and self-inspection for accident-preparing material handling facilities (5 points) ), and whether to establish and implement a safety management plan during maintenance and repair (5 points). Resident information provision and participation (10 points) includes active understanding of information provision for local residents (5 points) and resident participation (5 points) in the decision-making process and self-examination. Establishing a cooperative system with related organizations (10 points) includes operating a consultation system with relevant organizations such as local governments (5 points) and establishing an active cooperative system with local emergency response organizations (5 points).

The field of activities inside the workplace consists of 16 detailed items and a total score of 80 points, and the field of activities outside the workplace consists of 4 detailed items and a total of 20 points. There are a total of 20 detailed items, all of which are given 5 points, and the inspection (evaluation) method for each item is divided into three methods (interview, record review, and on-site verification) and applied.

Specifically, a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 3 evaluation methods are classified and applied for each item in consideration of the evaluation purpose and inspection factors of each item.

Interview is an inspection method that requires direct questions, such as assessing the level of understanding of the risk management plan of the person involved in the interview. Representative question types are presented, and the number of questions is five depending on the number of points that can be given through the interview for each item. or limited to three.

Record review is an inspection method to check whether the workplace is implementing the risk management plan through documented data or records, and the score is given according to the degree to which the relevant matters are complied with by presenting essential reflections. is granted

On-site condition is an inspection method to check the extent to which the contents are being complied with by presenting the necessary reflections, similar to the record review, and direct verification on site, such as checking whether data is provided in the control room and checking the management status of control products This need is primarily assessed.

The performance level evaluation grade (groups 1 to 4) of the relevant business site is determined according to the evaluation result (total score) of the implementation inspection, and the timing of the next implementation inspection (regular inspection) is also determined. For workplaces with a total score of 90 or higher and the performance level evaluation grade is in Group 1, the next implementation inspection period is determined four years after the next implementation check, and a workplace with a total score of 80 or more and less than 90 points and a performance level evaluation grade of Group 2 The timing of the next implementation check is determined after three years have elapsed. In addition, for workplaces with a total score of 70 or more and less than 80, and the performance level evaluation grade falls into Group 3, the next implementation inspection period is determined two years later, and the performance level assessment grade falls into Group 4 with a total score of less than 70 points. The next implementation inspection period is determined after one year has elapsed.

7 and 8 show an evaluation table including evaluation items for checking the implementation of a risk management plan according to another embodiment of the present invention. It is desirable that a workplace subject to the 1st level of the risk management plan apply a different implementation check evaluation table to the 2nd and 3rd level applied sites in order to efficiently check the implementation of the risk management plan. 7 and 8 show evaluation tables for workplaces subject to level 1 risk management plan.

7 and 8 , compared with the evaluation table of FIGS. 3 and 4 , the major classification of the evaluation table does not change to activities inside the workplace and activities outside the workplace, but the middle category is reduced from 6 items to 5 items, and the sub-category is 20 items is reduced to 13 items.

Based on the contents of the risk management plan, the implementation check evaluation table includes the evaluation of internal activities at the workplace (80 points) and the evaluation of activities outside the workplace (20 points). The evaluation items for internal activities at the workplace were the operability of implementing the risk management plan for understanding and self-verification of the risk management plan system (15 points), and the operability of the emergency response plan for internal and external emergency response plans and emergency measures and follow-up plans, etc. (20 points), the adequacy of chemical accident preparation activities for safety management organization and education and training, and management of control products (25 points), and the appropriateness of chemical accident prevention activities, which are evaluation items for process safety data and safety management plans (25 points) 20 points). Evaluation items for activities outside the workplace include providing information to the local community and establishing a cooperative system (20 points).

The operability of the implementation of the risk management plan (15 points) is the level of understanding of the risk management plan of the business owner (plant manager) (5 points), the level of understanding of the risk management plan of the accident-preparing material handler (5 points), and whether the risk management system is self-confirmed. (5 points). The operability of the emergency response plan (20 points) includes the operability of the internal emergency response plan (5 points), the operability of the external emergency response plan (5 points), and the operability of the emergency response and recovery plan in case of an emergency (10 points) do. The adequacy of chemical accident preparation activities (25 points) is the optimization of the status of workers and emergency contact systems and emergency response organizations (10 points), education and training for environmental safety personnel and specialized control personnel (10 points), and control equipment and management status of goods, etc. and ability to use them (5 points). The adequacy of chemical accident prevention activities (20 points) was determined by updating the handling facility data (10 points), the management status of fixed control facilities (safety devices), etc. (5 points), and conducting self-inspections for accident-preparing material handling facilities (5 points) point) is included. Provision of information to local communities and establishment of a cooperative system (20 points) includes active implementation of information provision to local communities and operation of a consultation system (20 points).

The field of internal activities at the workplace consists of 13 detailed items and a total score of 80 points, and the field of activities outside the workplace consists of one detailed item and a total of 20 points. There are a total of 13 detailed items, with a score of 5 or 10, and the inspection (evaluation) method for each item is divided into three methods (interview, record review, and on-site verification) and applied.

Specifically, a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 3 evaluation methods are classified and applied for each item in consideration of the evaluation purpose and inspection factors of each item.

Referring back to FIGS. 1 and 2 , the information storage unit 200 may store information input by the user (input information) and information processed by the compliance check unit 100 (process information). The input information may include information about the workplace, chemical substances possessed by the workplace, risk management plan, implementation check evaluation table, and the like. The processing information may include information on the result of interview with the person to whom the risk management plan is implemented, the review result of the record related to the implementation of the risk management plan, the evaluation result of the level of implementation, and the like.

The display unit 300 may display a screen for performing a risk management plan implementation check. The display unit 300 may display an information input screen, a risk management plan, a performance check evaluation table, etc. so that the user can input information necessary to perform a risk management plan implementation check, and display the processing information, etc. have.

9 to 12 show examples of screens displayed on the display unit of the risk management plan implementation inspection device. 9 shows the main screen initially seen when the program is executed by the risk management plan implementation inspection device, FIGS. 10 and 11 show a screen for evaluating the inspection items, and FIG. 12 shows a screen showing the evaluation details (summary).

Referring to FIG. 9 , the civil complaint number may have a unique number to indicate the number of the relevant business establishment, and may be assigned a number to avoid duplication with other business sites. The trade name indicates the business name. The supervisor enters the name of the evaluator (performance checker). Correction of civil complaint number is used when the unique number of the workplace is incorrect or changed. In the upper left box, the history is left after the evaluation, and you can check the details of the evaluation by clicking the relevant content. For the date of the performance check, enter the date of the evaluation. Based on the total score as a result of the inspection, the grades of groups 1 to 4 are automatically displayed. The next implementation inspection period is automatically calculated from the implementation inspection date based on the inspection results and the date is displayed. The total score for each item of internal and external activities of the workplace is displayed. The total score is calculated by adding up the scores for each item. The addition can be started by clicking the combo box when evaluating a new site in the risk management plan and when starting a new evaluation. If you click the additional item, the program initial screen is configured. Modification is used when modification of the current screen and configuration contents occurs. Delete can delete the selected item. For output, the selected content can be output to the connected printer. Preview is a function that allows you to see the output on the monitor. Import is a function that allows you to import contents (txt files) worked on another PC.

Referring to FIG. 10 , a treeview may be displayed on the left side to confirm the current evaluation level and whether or not the evaluation has been performed, thereby improving the convenience of the evaluator. You can move directly to the item you want to move from the tree view menu. Items that are not evaluated in the tree view menu are displayed in red to distinguish between evaluation items and non-evaluation items. Points indicate points for each item. The number of items to be evaluated indicates the number of items to be evaluated. ▶◀ The contents of the combo box indicate page turning backwards and forwards. Division, item, and sub-item indicate the titles of major, intermediate, and sub-categories. In the message, the evaluator's separate questions and other questions may be additionally registered. For other questions, the content of the evaluator's question can be entered. In addition to other questions, if the evaluator has two or more questions, you can add additional questions by clicking the button. In the memo field, the evaluator can make a separate memo. In the upper right corner, if you press the combo box so that the evaluator can score, the score is displayed for the evaluator's convenience, and you can recalculate by pressing the cancel button. If you select the roll bar, a questionnaire is selected and graded, and the choice of questions can be checked later.

Referring to FIG. 11 , a tree view may be displayed on the left side to confirm the current evaluation level and whether or not the evaluation has been performed, thereby improving the convenience of the evaluator. You can move directly to the item you want to move from the tree view menu. Items that are not evaluated in the tree view menu are displayed in red to distinguish between evaluation items and non-evaluation items. Points can be allocated by checking whether each item is reflected or not and checking the combo box. Among the reflected items, reflected/non-reflected are evaluated in the processing column and marked in the evaluation column. ▶◀ The contents of the combo box indicate page turning backwards and forwards. Category, item, and sub-item indicate the titles of major, intermediate, and sub-categories. In the message, separate questions and other questions from the evaluator may be additionally registered. For other questions, the content of the evaluator's questions can be entered. In addition to other questions, if the evaluator has two or more questions, you can add additional questions by clicking the button. In the memo field, the evaluator can make a separate memo. In the upper right corner, you can check the score by pressing the combo box so that the evaluator can score the combo box. If you select the roll bar, a questionnaire is selected and you can check the grading.

Referring to FIG. 12 , the corresponding item can be inquired by pressing the combo box by dividing All / Complete / Incomplete. It can be moved separately from the main screen and used simultaneously with other screens. With the search function for each evaluation item, you can check the scoring and question evaluation for each item, and you can check whether the number of evaluation items has been completed.

The risk management plan implementation check device 10 is not limited in the form in which it is implemented. For example, the risk management plan implementation check device 10 is an independent device that only performs the risk management plan implementation check, including the configuration in which the program for the risk management plan implementation check is installed, and can be carried by the implementation checker (evaluator). It may be implemented in the form of a personal device. Alternatively, the risk management plan implementation check device 10 may be implemented by installing a program for risk management plan implementation check on a smartphone, tablet PC, etc. in the form of an app.

[Risk Management Plan Implementation Inspection System]

Figure 13 shows a risk management plan implementation check system according to an embodiment of the present invention, Figure 14 shows the configuration of the user client of Figure 13.

13 and 14 , the risk management plan implementation check system 1 includes a risk management plan implementation check device 10 , a user client 20 , and a web server 30 . The risk management plan implementation check device 10 , the user client 20 , and the web server 30 may be connected to each other through a wired/wireless communication network 40 such as an Internet network.

The user clients 20 may include an operator client 21 , an administrator client 22 , and a compliance checker client 23 . The user client 20 may include various industrial and personal computer devices such as personal computers, smart phones, and tablet PCs. The operator client 21 , the manager client 22 , and the compliance checker client 23 may be disposed to be remotely spaced apart from each other, for example, the operator client 21 may be disposed at the workplace, and the manager client ( 22) may be disposed in a government agency, a supervisory agency, or the like, and the compliance checker client 23 may be disposed in an institution belonging to the compliance checker. In addition, the implementation checker client 23 and the risk management plan implementation check device 10 may be implemented as separate devices that are distinguished from each other, or may be implemented as a single integrated device.

Since the risk management plan implementation check device 10 has been described with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2 , it is omitted here. The risk management plan implementation check device 10 receives information from the user client 20 through the web server 30 and processes it to check the implementation of the risk management plan and evaluate the implementation level. The risk management plan implementation check apparatus 10 may store information input by the user client 20 (input information) and information processed by the risk management plan implementation check apparatus 10 (process information).

The input information may include information about the workplace, chemical substances possessed by the workplace, risk management plan, implementation check evaluation table, and the like. The processing information may include information on the result of interview with the person to whom the risk management plan is implemented, the review result of the record related to the implementation of the risk management plan, the evaluation result of the level of implementation, and the like. The input information and the processing information may be output to the user client 20 . Since the implementation check evaluation table has been described with reference to FIGS. 3, 4, 7, and 8, it is omitted here.

The risk management plan implementation check system 1 may be supplemented by on-site confirmation by the manager or by requesting the manager for on-site confirmation. On-site condition is an inspection method to check the extent to which the contents are being complied with by presenting the necessary reflections, similar to the record review, and direct verification on site, such as checking whether data is provided in the control room and checking the management status of control products This need is primarily assessed.

The performance level evaluation grade (groups 1 to 4) of the relevant business site is determined according to the evaluation result (total score) of the implementation inspection, and the timing of the next implementation inspection (regular inspection) is also determined.

The risk management plan implementation check system 1 outputs the performance level evaluation result by the risk management plan implementation check device 10 to the user client 20 , and the operator and the manager can check the evaluation result.

[How to check the implementation of the risk management plan]

15 shows a risk management plan implementation check method according to an embodiment of the present invention.

15, the risk management plan implementation check method is a method of checking the implementation of the risk management plan using the risk management plan implementation check device, and an interview step of conducting an interview with the person who is implementing the risk management plan (S10) ), a record review step of reviewing the records related to the implementation of the risk management plan (S20), a performance level evaluation step of evaluating the level of implementation of the risk management plan by the interview and review of the records (S30), and the subject of implementation may include a field investigation step (S40) of conducting a field investigation of the workplace.

The interview step (S10) may include a step of evaluating the degree of understanding of the implementation target for the risk management plan. The implementation-related record may include whether the risk management plan is implemented or not, the composition of the implementation inspection team of the implementation target, and the implementation result of the implementation target. The interview and review of the records may be conducted online. The evaluation of the performance level may include an evaluation of internal activities of the workplace and an evaluation of activities outside the workplace, and the timing of the next performance check may be determined according to the result of the evaluation of the performance level.

Interview is an inspection method that requires direct questions, such as assessing the level of understanding of risk management plan by the person involved in the interview. Representative question types are presented, and the number of questions is divided into 5 or 3 depending on the score that can be given through the interview for each item. Limited.

Record review is an inspection method to confirm whether the workplace is implementing the risk management plan through documented data or records, and points are given according to the degree to which the relevant matters are complied with by presenting essential reflections.

On-site verification is an inspection method to confirm the extent to which the contents are being complied with by presenting essential reflections, similar to record review. do.

The performance level is evaluated according to the performance check evaluation table including specific evaluation items, scoring criteria, and evaluation method. The risk management plan system divides the level of preparation of the risk management plan into three stages (level 1, level 2, and level 3) depending on whether there is an impact outside the workplace, whether accidents have occurred in the past 5 years, and whether similar systems have been applied according to other laws and regulations. and the performance check evaluation table can be applied differently depending on the level (level 1, level 2, level 3). The level of implementation of the risk management plan is evaluated according to a performance check evaluation table including evaluation items, scoring criteria, and evaluation methods, and at least one of the evaluation items, the scoring criteria, and the evaluation method is at the level (first level) , 2nd level, 3rd level) can be applied differently. Since the evaluation table for the performance level evaluation has been described with reference to FIGS. 3, 4, 7, and 8, it will be omitted herein.

The performance level evaluation grade (groups 1 to 4) of the relevant business site is determined according to the evaluation result (total score) of the implementation inspection, and the timing of the next implementation inspection (regular inspection) is also determined. For workplaces with a total score of 90 or higher and the performance level evaluation grade is in Group 1, the next implementation inspection period is determined four years after the next implementation check, and a workplace with a total score of 80 or more and less than 90 points and a performance level evaluation grade of Group 2 The timing of the next implementation check is determined after three years have elapsed. In addition, for workplaces with a total score of 70 or more and less than 80, and the performance level evaluation grade falls into Group 3, the next implementation inspection period is determined two years later, and the performance level assessment grade falls into Group 4 with a total score of less than 70 points. The next implementation inspection period is determined after one year has elapsed.

So far, specific embodiments of the present invention have been described. Those of ordinary skill in the art to which the present invention pertains will understand that the present invention can be implemented in a modified form without departing from the essential characteristics of the present invention. Therefore, the disclosed embodiments are to be considered in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense. The scope of the present invention is indicated in the claims rather than the foregoing description, and all differences within the scope equivalent thereto should be construed as being included in the present invention.

1: Risk management plan implementation check system 10: Risk management plan implementation check system
20: user client 30: web server
40: communication network 100: implementation inspection department
110: interview means 120: record review means
130: performance level evaluation means 200: information storage unit
300: display unit 400: communication unit

Claims (10)

A device for checking implementation of a risk management plan, comprising a performance check unit for receiving and processing information required to check the implementation of the risk management plan from a user to check the implementation of the risk management plan. The method of claim 1,
The level of implementation of the risk management plan is evaluated according to the implementation check evaluation table including evaluation items, scoring criteria, and evaluation methods,
At least one of the evaluation items, the scoring criteria, and the evaluation method is differently applied depending on whether or not a chemical accident occurs for a certain period of time. 3. The method of claim 2,
The evaluation items, the scoring criteria, and the evaluation method are divided into 1st level and 2nd level and applied,
The above level 1 corresponds to the case where no chemical accident has occurred in the past 5 years and there are no residents within the range of impact caused by the accident.
The second level is a risk management plan implementation check device, characterized in that it corresponds to a case that does not correspond to the first level. The method of claim 1,
Implementation of a risk management plan further comprising an information storage unit connected to the implementation inspection unit and storing information (input information) input from the user and information (process information) generated by processing the input information by the implementation inspection unit check device. 5. The method of claim 4,
The input information includes information on the workplace, chemical substances owned by the workplace, risk management plan, and implementation check evaluation table,
The processing information is a risk management plan implementation check device, characterized in that it includes information on the results of the interview with the target implementation of the risk management plan, the review results of the records related to the implementation of the risk management plan, and the performance level evaluation results. The method of claim 1,
The performance check unit,
Interview means for conducting an interview with the person subject to the implementation of the above risk management plan;
a record review means for reviewing records relating to the implementation of said risk management plan; and
and an implementation level evaluation means for evaluating the implementation level of the risk management plan by the interview and the review of the records. 7. The method of claim 6,
The implementation level evaluation is a risk management plan implementation check device, characterized in that it includes an evaluation of internal activities of the workplace and an evaluation of activities outside the workplace. 7. The method of claim 6,
A risk management plan implementation check device, characterized in that the next implementation check time is determined according to the performance level evaluation result. 7. The method of claim 6,
The interview means,
Risk management plan implementation check device, characterized in that for evaluating the degree of understanding of the implementation target for the risk management plan. 7. The method of claim 6,
The implementation-related record is a risk management plan implementation check device, characterized in that it includes whether the implementation of the risk management plan is implemented, the composition of the implementation inspection team of the implementation target, and the implementation result of the implementation target.

Images