Investigative Analysis of Safety Risk Assessment at a Science and Technology University: Analysis of 2019 Risk Assessment and 2021 Actual Accidents

Hiroko Kato, Masako Iwasaki, Takayuki Sunazaki, Shinichi Daiten and Yukitoshi Takeshita*, 
{"title":"Investigative Analysis of Safety Risk Assessment at a Science and Technology University: Analysis of 2019 Risk Assessment and 2021 Actual Accidents","authors":"Hiroko Kato,&nbsp;Masako Iwasaki,&nbsp;Takayuki Sunazaki,&nbsp;Shinichi Daiten and Yukitoshi Takeshita*,&nbsp;","doi":"10.1021/acs.chas.3c00066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Our university has been conducting safety and health risk assessments in accordance with the Basic Health and Safety Policy established in 2005. In this context, a risk assessment of chemical substances has been in place. The implementation of chemical substance risk assessment became mandatory by Japanese law in FY 2016. At our university, the series of safety risk assessments has totaled approximately 6,500 cases. Of these, the most common damage predicted was “Fire” at around 16%, followed by “Burn” at about 13%, and “Chemical burn” at approximately 11%. Of the risk assessments in which “Fire” was the predicted damage, “Chemical substance” was the most frequently identified hazard. Specifically, around 40% of “Chemical substance” was “Flammable liquid”, about 30% was “Spontaneously combustible substance and water-prohibiting substance”, and approximately 9% was “Other hazardous material”. It should be noted that there was a negative association between the percentage of risk assessments performed and the percentage of actual accidents that occurred. That is, what is strongly recognized as a hazard in risk assessment tends to have fewer occurrences as an actual accident cause. As a rule, the identified hazard in the risk assessment and the main cause of the actual accident were consistent, and the risk assessment based on the assumption of several predictable types of damage from a single hazard could have been directly attributed to the prevention of actual accidents.</p>","PeriodicalId":73648,"journal":{"name":"Journal of chemical health & safety","volume":"31 1","pages":"57–67"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acs.chas.3c00066","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of chemical health & safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chas.3c00066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Our university has been conducting safety and health risk assessments in accordance with the Basic Health and Safety Policy established in 2005. In this context, a risk assessment of chemical substances has been in place. The implementation of chemical substance risk assessment became mandatory by Japanese law in FY 2016. At our university, the series of safety risk assessments has totaled approximately 6,500 cases. Of these, the most common damage predicted was “Fire” at around 16%, followed by “Burn” at about 13%, and “Chemical burn” at approximately 11%. Of the risk assessments in which “Fire” was the predicted damage, “Chemical substance” was the most frequently identified hazard. Specifically, around 40% of “Chemical substance” was “Flammable liquid”, about 30% was “Spontaneously combustible substance and water-prohibiting substance”, and approximately 9% was “Other hazardous material”. It should be noted that there was a negative association between the percentage of risk assessments performed and the percentage of actual accidents that occurred. That is, what is strongly recognized as a hazard in risk assessment tends to have fewer occurrences as an actual accident cause. As a rule, the identified hazard in the risk assessment and the main cause of the actual accident were consistent, and the risk assessment based on the assumption of several predictable types of damage from a single hazard could have been directly attributed to the prevention of actual accidents.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
科技大学安全风险评估调查分析:2019 年风险评估和 2021 年实际事故分析
我校一直在根据 2005 年制定的 "健康与安全基本政策 "进行安全与健康风险评估。在此背景下,化学物质风险评估已经到位。2016 年度,日本法律强制要求实施化学物质风险评估。在我校,一系列安全风险评估已累计约 6500 例。其中,最常见的损害预测是 "火灾",约占 16%,其次是 "烧伤",约占 13%,"化学烧伤 "约占 11%。在预测损害为 "火灾 "的风险评估中,"化学物质 "是最常见的危险。具体来说,约 40% 的 "化学物质 "为 "易燃液体",约 30% 为 "自燃物质和禁水物质",约 9% 为 "其他危险材料"。值得注意的是,进行风险评估的比例与实际发生事故的比例呈负相关。也就是说,在风险评估中被强烈认定为危险的东西作为实际事故原因的发生率往往较低。通常情况下,风险评估中确定的危险和实际事故的主要原因是一致的,而基于单一危险造成的几种可预测损害的假设进行的风险评估可以直接用于预防实际事故的发生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Issue Editorial Masthead Issue Publication Information A Call for Papers “Chemical Safety in Universities: Legally Enforced vs Culturally Embraced” Leveraging Radiofrequency Identification Success Beyond Hazardous Material Inventory Management at a National Laboratory The Gist of the List
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1