广东省某海洋石油工程装备制造项目粉尘危害风险级别的3种风险评估方法研究
|
摘要
目的分析比较3种风险评估方法对广东省某海洋石油工程装备制造项目("建设项目")粉尘危害的风险分级。方法 2017年5—10月对建设项目进行职业卫生调查及工作场所粉尘浓度检测,并分别采用GBZ/T 229.1-2010《工作场所职业病危害作业分级第1部分:生产性粉尘》(分级标准)、风险指数评估法、国际采矿与金属委员会职业健康风险评价模型("ICMM定量法")对该建设项目切割和喷涂车间工作场所进行粉尘危害风险进行评估,并对3种风险评估方法的分级结果进行比较。结果分级标准对喷砂工序评价为中度危害,对风铲轮、手工焊和CO2保护焊工序风险分级评价为轻度危害,其余评价为相对无害。风险指数法对喷砂工序风险分级评价为高度危害,手工焊工序为中度危害,CO2保护焊和风铲轮工序评价为轻度危害,其余工序评价为无危害。ICMM定量法对风铲轮导致的呼吸道刺激症状风险分级评价为非常高风险,对气割、等离子切割工序导致的呼吸道刺激症状风险分级评价为可容忍风险,其余工序均为不可容忍风险。定量法对各工序导致的尘肺风险分级评价均为不可容忍。结论分级标准和风险指数法分级结果较一致。分级标准对工作场所粉尘危害风险评价虽然较客观,但需进一步细化指标。风险指数法粉尘风险评价较全面,但部分指标主观性较大。ICMM定量法对粉尘风险的评价高估且评价较主观。
[Objective] To analyze and compare the risk ratings for dust hazard of an offshore oil engineering equipment manufacturing project(hereafter referred to as "construction project")with three risk assessment methods.[Methods]Occupational hygiene investigation and industrial dust detection in workplaces of construction project were made firstly from May to October2017. The risk ratings for industrial dust of cutting workshop and painting workshop of the construction project were employed and compared with three risk assessment methods including classification of occupational hazards at workplaces,part 1: occupational exposure to industrial dust(GBZ/T 229.1-2010)(hereafter referred to as dust classification standard), risk index m ethod,and occupational health risks of the International Mining and Metals Commission Evaluation Model(hereafter referred to as ICMM method),respectively.[Results]Using the dust classification standard,the risk rating of sand blasting process was moderate,the risk rating of pneumatic digger process,manual welding process and CO2 protective welding process were mild,and other processes were risk-free. Using the risk index method,the risk rating of sand blasting process was high,the risk rating of manual welding process was moderate,the risk rating of pneumatic digger process and CO2 protective welding process were mild,and other processes were risk-free. Using the ICMM quantitative method,the risk rating of gas cutting and plasma cutting process that lead to symptom of respiratory tract irritation was tolerable,the risk rating of pneumatic digger that lead to symptom of respiratory tract irritation were very high,and the risk rating of other processes were intolerable,while the risk ratings of all processes that lead to pneumoconiosis were intolerable.[Conclusion]The risk ratings of the dust classification standard and risk index method are consistent. The risk ratings of dust classification standard are more objective,but detailed indicators needed to be improved.The risk index method is more comprehensive in assessing dust risks,but some indicators are subjective. The risk by ICMM quantitative method is tended to be overestimated and the indicators are more subjective.
[Objective] To analyze and compare the risk ratings for dust hazard of an offshore oil engineering equipment manufacturing project(hereafter referred to as "construction project")with three risk assessment methods.[Methods]Occupational hygiene investigation and industrial dust detection in workplaces of construction project were made firstly from May to October2017. The risk ratings for industrial dust of cutting workshop and painting workshop of the construction project were employed and compared with three risk assessment methods including classification of occupational hazards at workplaces,part 1: occupational exposure to industrial dust(GBZ/T 229.1-2010)(hereafter referred to as dust classification standard), risk index m ethod,and occupational health risks of the International Mining and Metals Commission Evaluation Model(hereafter referred to as ICMM method),respectively.[Results]Using the dust classification standard,the risk rating of sand blasting process was moderate,the risk rating of pneumatic digger process,manual welding process and CO2 protective welding process were mild,and other processes were risk-free. Using the risk index method,the risk rating of sand blasting process was high,the risk rating of manual welding process was moderate,the risk rating of pneumatic digger process and CO2 protective welding process were mild,and other processes were risk-free. Using the ICMM quantitative method,the risk rating of gas cutting and plasma cutting process that lead to symptom of respiratory tract irritation was tolerable,the risk rating of pneumatic digger that lead to symptom of respiratory tract irritation were very high,and the risk rating of other processes were intolerable,while the risk ratings of all processes that lead to pneumoconiosis were intolerable.[Conclusion]The risk ratings of the dust classification standard and risk index method are consistent. The risk ratings of dust classification standard are more objective,but detailed indicators needed to be improved.The risk index method is more comprehensive in assessing dust risks,but some indicators are subjective. The risk by ICMM quantitative method is tended to be overestimated and the indicators are more subjective.
引文
[1]中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局,中国国家标准化管理委员会.风险管理术语.GB/T 23694-2013[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2014.
[2]刘文慧,苏世标,徐海娟,等.职业健康风险评估方法应用研究进展[J].中国职业医学,2016,43(4):487-490.
[3]THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND.Occupational health and safety,risk assessment and management guideline[R].Australia:Occupational Health and Safety Unit,2004[R/OL].(2017-2-15)[2018-10-26].https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/hsprograms/risk_assessment.html.
[4]MINISTRY OF MANPOWER.A semi-quantitative method to assess occupational exposure to harmful chemicals[R].Singapore:Ministry of Manpower Occupational Safety and Health Division,2005[EB/OL].(2018-04-16)[2018-10-26].https://www.mom.gov.sg/workplace-safetyand-health/safety-and-health-management-systems/risk-management.
[5]USEPA.Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund VolumeⅠHuman Health Evaluation Manual(Part F.Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment.EPA-540-R-070-0020SWER9285.7-82 January2009)[EB/OL].(2016-04-19)[2018-10-26].https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessment-guidance-superfund-rags-part-f.
[6]王欣,徐渴,曾强.粉尘作业场所职业健康风险评估方法的研究进展[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2018,36(3):234-237.
[7]钟学飘,朱志良,马争,等.2005-2013年全国职业病发病情况分析[J].实用预防医学,2015,22(7):858-859.
[8]朱博,王新,孙明伟,等.职业病危害现状评价中风险评估方法的概述[J].中国卫生工程学,2013,12(2):147-149.
[9]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所空气中有害物质监测的采样规范:GBZ 159-2004[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2006.
[10]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所空气中粉尘测定第1部分:总粉尘浓度:GBZ/T 192.1-2007[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2007.
[11]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所职业病危害作业分级第1部分:生产性粉尘:GBZ/T 229.1-2010[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2010.
[12]林嗣豪,王治明,唐文娟,等.职业危害风险指数评估方法的初步研究[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2006,24(12):769-771.
[13]International Council on Mining and Metals.Good Practice Guidance on Occupational Health Risk Assessment 2009[EB/OL].(2016-12-12)[2018-10-26].http://www.icmm.com/gpg-occupational-health.
[14]厉小燕,陈坤,张美辨,等.国际采矿与金属委员会职业健康风险评估模型在火力发电厂的应用研究[J].浙江预防医学,2013,25(11):16-20,27.
[15]覃德芹,王芳,周嫣,等.风险管理和评估技术在职业病监管中的应用[J].中国公共卫生管理,2017,33(2):164-167.
[16]王海椒,王雪涛.我国粉尘作业风险评估方法的发展及现状[J].职业与健康,2016,32(2):279-281,285.
[17]徐健英,余璐刚.职业病危害作业分级标准及其应用[J].工业卫生与职业病,2013,39(1):56-59.
[18]吴宾,汉锋,张思雨,等.职业危害风险指数法在煤矿煤尘职业健康风险评估中的应用[J].中国工业医学杂志,2016,29(4):311-312.
[19]冯斌,邵华,何珍.ICMM健康风险评价法在煤制天然气企业职业病危害评价中的应用[J].职业与健康,2016,32(19):2607-2609,2613.
[20]汉锋,张思雨,吴宾,等.煤码头煤尘职业健康影响风险评估[J].卫生研究,2017,46(2):282-286,290.
[2]刘文慧,苏世标,徐海娟,等.职业健康风险评估方法应用研究进展[J].中国职业医学,2016,43(4):487-490.
[3]THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND.Occupational health and safety,risk assessment and management guideline[R].Australia:Occupational Health and Safety Unit,2004[R/OL].(2017-2-15)[2018-10-26].https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/hsprograms/risk_assessment.html.
[4]MINISTRY OF MANPOWER.A semi-quantitative method to assess occupational exposure to harmful chemicals[R].Singapore:Ministry of Manpower Occupational Safety and Health Division,2005[EB/OL].(2018-04-16)[2018-10-26].https://www.mom.gov.sg/workplace-safetyand-health/safety-and-health-management-systems/risk-management.
[5]USEPA.Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund VolumeⅠHuman Health Evaluation Manual(Part F.Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment.EPA-540-R-070-0020SWER9285.7-82 January2009)[EB/OL].(2016-04-19)[2018-10-26].https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessment-guidance-superfund-rags-part-f.
[6]王欣,徐渴,曾强.粉尘作业场所职业健康风险评估方法的研究进展[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2018,36(3):234-237.
[7]钟学飘,朱志良,马争,等.2005-2013年全国职业病发病情况分析[J].实用预防医学,2015,22(7):858-859.
[8]朱博,王新,孙明伟,等.职业病危害现状评价中风险评估方法的概述[J].中国卫生工程学,2013,12(2):147-149.
[9]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所空气中有害物质监测的采样规范:GBZ 159-2004[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2006.
[10]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所空气中粉尘测定第1部分:总粉尘浓度:GBZ/T 192.1-2007[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2007.
[11]中华人民共和国卫生部.工作场所职业病危害作业分级第1部分:生产性粉尘:GBZ/T 229.1-2010[S].北京:人民卫生出版社,2010.
[12]林嗣豪,王治明,唐文娟,等.职业危害风险指数评估方法的初步研究[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2006,24(12):769-771.
[13]International Council on Mining and Metals.Good Practice Guidance on Occupational Health Risk Assessment 2009[EB/OL].(2016-12-12)[2018-10-26].http://www.icmm.com/gpg-occupational-health.
[14]厉小燕,陈坤,张美辨,等.国际采矿与金属委员会职业健康风险评估模型在火力发电厂的应用研究[J].浙江预防医学,2013,25(11):16-20,27.
[15]覃德芹,王芳,周嫣,等.风险管理和评估技术在职业病监管中的应用[J].中国公共卫生管理,2017,33(2):164-167.
[16]王海椒,王雪涛.我国粉尘作业风险评估方法的发展及现状[J].职业与健康,2016,32(2):279-281,285.
[17]徐健英,余璐刚.职业病危害作业分级标准及其应用[J].工业卫生与职业病,2013,39(1):56-59.
[18]吴宾,汉锋,张思雨,等.职业危害风险指数法在煤矿煤尘职业健康风险评估中的应用[J].中国工业医学杂志,2016,29(4):311-312.
[19]冯斌,邵华,何珍.ICMM健康风险评价法在煤制天然气企业职业病危害评价中的应用[J].职业与健康,2016,32(19):2607-2609,2613.
[20]汉锋,张思雨,吴宾,等.煤码头煤尘职业健康影响风险评估[J].卫生研究,2017,46(2):282-286,290.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |