Bir Kömür Madeninde İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Risk Değerlendirmesi İçin Uygun Yöntem Seçimi

Göster/Aç
Tarih
2019Yazar
Koçak, Derya
Ambargo Süresi
Acik erisimpublications
0
supporting
0
mentioning
0
contrasting
0
0
0
0
0
Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
See how this article has been cited at scite.ai
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.
Üst veri
Tüm öğe kaydını gösterÖzet
Risk assessment is one of the most important steps in the occupational health and safety
management system. There are many quantitative and qualitative methods used for risk
assessment. Selection the appropriate method for the plant has great importance to carry
out successful risk assessment.
For this purpose, fuzzy TOPSIS was used to select the most appropriate method for
Turkey Hard Coal Enterprises Kozlu Institution. In the study, four methods were
discussed: L Type 5 × 5 Matrix, Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Bowtie
Analysis and Job Safety Analysis. These methods were evaluated in accordance with the
seven criteria and the appropriate method was determined as bowtie analysis. The study
was conducted together with two mining engineers in the risk assessment team of
institution. At the same time, one labour and social security training expert participated
as an observer.
BowtieXP program was used in the case study. Methane gas and underground fire were
analyzed under chemical hazards. Top events were defined as the formation of an
explosive atmosphere and contact of the ignition source with the combustible material.
For the first analysis, 11 threats and 9 consequences and for second analysis, 9 threats and
9 consequences were defined. In both analyzes, barriers for threats and consequences
were determined and detailed analysis of these barriers was carried out. Risk matrices
were used to evaluate the results. Generally, it was concluded that risk mitigation
measures should be taken, and continuous improvement and monitoring were needed.
The intolerable risk level is not defined.