風險可接受度探討

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：53

、訪客IP：3.15.29.73

姓名

賴瑞菊(Jui-Chu Lai) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

環境工程研究所

論文名稱

風險可接受度探討
(The Combined Use of Accident Scenario and ALARP in Risk Assessment)

相關論文

★ 氫氟酸玻璃薄化製程之安全評估與風險控制	★ 台北縣毒性化學物質運作場所災害潛勢分析
★ 潛盾隧道作業安全分析	★ ISO 50001能源管理系統建置機制研究
★ 廢棄物管理e化系統設計與應用	★ 印刷電路板製程高溫烘烤設備失效模式與效應分析研究
★ 承攬風險管理	★ 光電業組立製程人因風險探討
★ 濺鍍耙材噴砂作業粉塵及噪音暴露危害評估	★ 光電廠增光膜製程健康風險評估與控制
★ 行為安全執行策略探討-以某紡絲事業單位為例	★ 高階製程安全管理架構
★ 工業化學品整合管理制度探討	★ 半導體業承攬作業風險評估
★ 職業安全衛生績效管理機制	★ 事件樹於職業安全風險評估應用研究

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

風險管理是職業安全衛生管理系統設計和運作的主軸，而風險評估則是職安衛風險管理關鍵作業。風險評估方法約可分為定性、半定量和定量三類，但是大部分的風險評估方法都存在著過於主觀、結果不具說服力、不易被現場人員接受等問題。風險矩陣因為容易了解、使用簡單，是常見的風險評估方法，但是因為可能性和後果嚴重性表達的方式並無一致的標準，評估的結果因人而異。此外，風險等級如可接受或可容忍的判定，多半採用經驗法則，無法發揮後續風險控制機制選擇或風險控制有效性評估的功能。情境分析可幫助了解由危害導致事故發生的事件序列，包含危害、原因、偏離、事故、影響等情境因子和考量預防、控制、保護、消減等安全屏障，並可根據情境分析結果，作為後果嚴重度與可能性等級的分類依據，和評估後果嚴重度、可能性等級。因此，本研究是以工作場所作業個人傷害風險為基礎，發展情境分析架構，利用情境分析結果和合理可行概念結合風險矩陣，並以衝擊事件為後果探討風險等級的判定基準，彌補風險矩陣無法判定評估結果可接受度的缺失，降低風險評估的不確定性，提昇評估結果的可信度及可用度。本研究為針對工作場所中的作業人員進行個人傷害風險評估，因此對於風險可容忍度的判定標準提出較為嚴格的要求，並以局限空間作業和矽甲烷換鋼作業為案例，驗證本研究所建立之風險評估方法的可行性。利用特定作業的標準作業程序建立可信的事故情境以評估風險，並假設風險控制策略可降低30%的情境發生率和一等級的後果嚴重度，評估實施風險控制策略後的殘餘風險。研究結果顯示本研究所建立的風險評估方法可有效的評估職業安全衛生風險和判定風險可接受度，達到合理可行的降低風險和預防事故發生的雙重效益。

摘要(英)

Risk management is an integral part of most occupational health and safety management system standards. It serves to identify and assess the risks associated with the hazards in a workplace. Risk assessment provides organizations with an insight in health and safety risks and the opportunity to prioritize risk management strategies. Despite its importance and increasing applications, two outstanding issues remain in the risk assessment process. The first is subjectivity since there is always uncertainty, the need for judgment, differences in human perception of risk, and reliability of the data used. The second issue arises from the varying criterion for risk acceptability and tolerability.
This study aims to provide practical solutions to the dilemmas encountered in occupational health and safety risk assessment. Because of its ease of use and popularity, risk matrix is chosen as the risk assessment tool in this study. Instead of using qualitative descriptors for likelihood and consequence, semi-quantitative scales are adopted. To minimize bias of the risk assessors, a protection layer-based scenario development technique is proposed in this study. Four categories of safety barriers with specific functions for prevention, control, protection and mitigation of accidents are used in developing the most credible accident scenarios and estimating the likelihood and consequence of each scenario. The issue of acceptability and tolerability is addressed by applying the fundamental principles of as low as reasonably practicable.
Validity of the proposed scenario development technique and the combined use of as low as reasonably practicable and risk matrix is tested with two case studies. The first case involves hazard identification and risk assessment of tasks performed in a confined space environment. The second case attempts to assess the risks associated with silane cylinder change. The results illustrate that credible accident scenarios can indeed be derived from the standard operating procedures of a specified task and more reliable estimations of the consequence and likelihood of each scenario can be achieved. Acceptability and the effectiveness of risk control mechanism can be clearly demonstrated in the risk matrix. The scenario-based risk assessment technique may provide the much needed solutions in alleviating the inherent dilemmas of subjectivity, bias and uncertainty of risk assessment.

關鍵字(中)

★ 情境分析
★ 風險評估
★ 風險矩陣
★ ALARP

關鍵字(英)

★ Scenario-based risk assessment
★ Scenario development
★ Risk assessment
★ As low as reasonably practicable

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract ii
誌謝 iv
目錄 v
圖目錄 viii
表目錄 x
第一章緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究目的 5
1.3 研究流程 6
第二章文獻回顧 7
2.1 風險評估與職業安全衛生管理系統 7
2.2 風險評估技術概述 9
2.2.1 What-If分析 11
2.2.2 查核表分析 11
2.2.3 危害與可操作性分析(HAZOP) 12
2.2.4 事件樹(ETA) 13
2.2.5 失誤樹(FTA) 14
2.2.6 失效模式與影響分析(FMEA) 16
2.2.7 風險矩陣 16
2.2.8 NSCA風險分數計算圖 18
2.3 風險判定基準 22
2.4 情境分析方法 23
第三章風險矩陣使用方法 25
3.1 情境分析 26
3.1.1 情境分析架構 26
3.1.2 情境分析安全屏障設定原則 29
3.1.3 情境分析應用 30
3.2 風險矩陣建立機制 31
3.2.1 風險矩陣應用對象和用途 32
3.2.2 界定後果和可能性等級 33
3.2.3 結合風險可容忍度標準建立風險矩陣 38
3.2.4 決定風險控制機制 43
第四章風險矩陣案例研究 47
4.1 局限空間作業常見危害情境分析與風險評估 47
4.1.1 局限空間作業常見危害安全屏障 48
4.1.2 局限空間作業常見危害情境分析架構 54
4.1.3 局限空間作業常見危害情境分析結果 55
4.1.4 分類局限空間作業常見危害後果嚴重度等級 62
4.1.5 分類局限空間作業常見危害可能性等級 63
4.1.6 建立局限空間作業常見危害的風險判定矩陣 64
4.1.7 局限空間作業常見危害風險評估結果 65
4.2 矽甲烷換鋼作業危害情境分析與風險評估 72
4.2.1 矽甲烷換鋼作業危害安全屏障 72
4.2.2 矽甲烷換鋼作業危害情境分析架構 75
4.2.3 矽甲烷換鋼作業危害情境分析結果 76
4.2.4 分類矽甲烷換鋼作業危害後果嚴重度等級 81
4.2.5 分類矽甲烷換鋼作業危害可能性等級 81
4.2.6 建立矽甲烷換鋼作業危害的風險判定矩陣 82
4.2.7 矽甲烷換鋼作業危害風險評估結果 83
第五章結論與建議 87
5.1 結論 87
5.2 建議 89
參考文獻 91

參考文獻

1.Health and Safety Executive, Successful Health and Safety Management, HSE Books HSG 65, 1991.
2.British Standards Institution, Occupational Health and Safety Management System –Guide, BS 8800: 2004, 2004.
3.British Standards Institution, Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems –Requirements, OHSAS 18001:2007, 2007.
4.British Standards Institution, Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems –Guidelines for the Implementation of OHSAS 18001:2007, OHSAS 18002: 2008, 2008.
5.International Labour Organization, Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems, ILO-OSH 2001, 2001.
6.American Industrial Hygiene Association, Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005, 2005.
7.Canadian Standards Association, Occupational Health and Safety Management, CSA Z1000-06, 2006.
8.行政院勞工委員會，臺灣職業安全衛生管理系統指導綱領，2008。
9.行政院勞工委員會，勞工安全衛生組織管理及自動檢查辦法，2008。
10.European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2010.
http://osha.europa.eu/en
11.Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 2010.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/index.htm
12.Japan Industrial Safety and Health Association, 2010.
http://www.jisha.or.jp/index.html
13.Parliament of the United Kingdom, Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, HSW, 1974.
14.Health and Safety Commission, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Approved Code of Practice and guidance, HSE Books MHSWR, 2000.
15.S.A. Gadd, D.M. Keeley, H.F. Balmforth, Pitfalls in Risk Assessment: Examples from the UK, Safety Science, 42, pp.841– 857, 2004.
16.J.M. Woodruff, Consequence and Likelihood in Risk Estimation: Matter of Balance in UK Health and Safety Risk Assessment Practice, Safety Science, 43, pp.345– 353, 2005.
17.Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand, Risk Management AS/NZS 4360:2004. Jointly published by Standards Australia International Ltd., Sydney & Standards New Zealand, Wellington, 2004.
18.M. Middleton and A. Franks, Using Risk Matrices, Chemical Engineer, issue 723, pp.34 – 37, 2001.
19.H. Ni, A. Chen, N. Chen, Some Extensions on Risk Matrix Approach, Safety Science, 2010.
20.Health and Safety Executive, Reducing Risks, Protecting People –HSE’s Decision-making Process, 2001.
21.P. Barringer, Risk-Based Decisions, Barringer and Associates, Inc., 2004.
22.行政院勞工委員會，危害辨識及風險評估技術指引，2009。
23.G. Wilkinson and R. David, Back to Basics: Risk Matrices and ALARP, Safety-critical Systems: Problems, Process, and Practice, pp.179 – 182, 2009.
24.王世煌，工業安全風險評估，揚智文化，2002。
25.V. M. Fthenakis and S.R. Trammell, Reference Guide for Hazard Analysis in PV Facilities, Brookhaven National Laboratory, 2003.
26.I. Maragakis, S. Clark et al., Guidance on Hazard Identification, Safety Management System and Safety Culture Working Group, 2009.
27.U.S. Department of Energy, DOE Handbook, DOE-HDBK-1100-2004, Chemical Process Hazards Analysis, Washington, DC, August 2004.
28.Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis, Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 1989.
29.Principles of Risk Management, 2005.
http://www.ceet.niu.edu/depts/tech/asse/tech482/Riskmgt_notes.pdf
30.Process Risk Management, Sutton Technical Books, Houston, Texas, 2007.
31.H. Ozog, Designing an Effective Risk Matrix, ioMosaic Corporation, 2009.
32.Electronic Risk Score Calculator, 2010.
http://www.riskex.com.au/risk_score_calculator.htm
33.D. Allen, Web-Based Process Engineering Risk Calculator, 1998.
http://www.cheque.uq.edu.au/ugrad/theses/1998/DaveA/index.html
34.V.M. Trbojevic, Risk Criteria in EU, Risk Support Limited, London, U.K., 2005.
35.D. Kim, I. Moon, Y. Lee, D. Yoon, Automatic Generation of Accident Scenarios in Domain Specific Chemical Plants, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 16, pp.121– 132, 2003.
36.葉宇光，事件樹於職業安全風險評估應用研究，國立中央大學環境工程研究所碩士論文，2009。
37.Guide to Achieving Effective Occupational Health and Safety Performance, BS 18004: 2008, British Standards Institution, London, 2008.
38.Standard Practice for System Safety, MIL-STD-882D, Department of Defense, 2000.
39.Guideline for Risk Management, 2009.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ivv/pdf/209213main_S3001.pdf
40.Ranking Risks: Rare to Certain, Negligible to Catastrophic, 2008.
http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/pdf/ranking-risks-rare-to-certain-negligible-to-catastrophic.pdf
41.陳秋蓉、何俊傑，我國職災勞工死亡經濟成本之估算，行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究所，1997。
42.J.F. Whiting, Risk Tolerability Framework – Developing and Implementing a Practical Workable Framework for your Workplace, APOSHO conference, 2001.
43.勞工安全衛生設施規則，2007。
44.局限空間作業危害預防要點，行政院勞工委員會，2003年。
45.局限空間氣體危害預防手冊，行政院勞委會勞工安全衛生研究所，2004。
46.勞工安全衛生管理實務見解，2009。
http://www.epza.gov.tw/%2Fself_store%2F282%2Fself_attach%2F981105%E5%AE%A3%E5%B0%8E%E6%9C%83%E8%AC%9B%E7%BE%A9_.ppt
47.工安警訊，行政院勞委會勞工安全衛生研究所，2007。
http://www.iosh.gov.tw/Print.aspx?cnid=4&p=325
48.缺氧症預防規則，1998。
49.黃盛修，呼吸防護原理與實務，勞工委員會勞工安全研究所，2008。
http://mail.cmu.edu.tw/~lhy/claz/97HS/SH_W17_resp.pdf

指導教授

于樹偉(Shuh-Woei Yu)

審核日期

2011-1-26

推文