Environmental Risk Assessment of Sponge Iron production unit in Khorasan Steel Company Using Comparative Methods ETBA and JSA

Subject Areas : ارزیابی پی آمدهای محیط زیستی

Samaneh Sanjari ¹ , Sahar Rezaian ^{2 *} , Seyed Ali Jozi ³

1 - MSc of Environmental Assessment, Islamic Azad University of Tehran science and Research, Tehran, Iran
2 - Associate Professor, Department of Environment Islamic Azad University, Shahrood Branch, Iran.* (Corresponding Author)
3 - Full Professor, Department of Environment Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iarn.

Received: 2014-12-23 Accepted : 2015-07-15 Published : 2017-08-23

Keywords: Risk Assessment, Steel Industry, Job Safety Analysis Method, ETBA Method (Energy Trace and , Khorasan Steel Complex Company,

Abstract :

Background and Objective: The present study was conducted in line with the manufacturers’ awareness and tendency towards minimizing the hazards associated with workplace compounded by technological developments and utilization of modern machinery leading to the increase of both production rates and eventual soaring risk probabilities. Employing Job Safety Analysis (JSA) and Energy Trace and Barrier Analysis (ETBA) methods, the study aims to assess the environmental risk of direct recovery unit. Method: The process began with identification of environmental risks associated with this unit through the abovementioned methods. After identification of risks, the strengths and weaknesses of each method were compared, and finally separate evaluations were conducted using each method. Findings: Six high-risk jobs were identified in Job Safety Analysis Method. 47 hazards were identified to be at the unacceptable risk level in 2 cases, unfavorable risk level in 28 cases and acceptable risk level in 17 cases. In Energy Trace and Barrier Analysis method, 9 types of energy were identified by using energy checklist. The most important risks associated with these energies are reduction gas leakage and increase of gas pressure inside the furnace. In this method, 17 risks were identified in to be at the unacceptable risk levelin 3 cases, unfavorable risk levelin 7 cases, acceptable upon revisit in 3 cases and acceptable with no need for revisitin 4 cases. Conclusion: Implementing the security principles based on personal observations and interviews with experts and using opinions of production experts, proposition was made to make use of a general method combining the two aforesaid methods instead of applying each method separately in orde to ensure the highest efficiency and staff safety.

References:

منابع

1-      حبیبی، احسان ا...، 1386، ایمنی کاربردی و شاخص‌های عملکرد در صنعت، چاپ دوم، نشر فن‌آوران، صفحه 1.

2-      Nivolianitou Z. (2002), Risk Analysis and Risk Management: A European in sight Law, Prohability and Risk. 1(2): 161- 174.

3-     ارقامی. شیرازه و بویا. مصطفی، 1385، اصول ایمنی در صنعت و خدمات، انتشارات فن‌آوران، چاپ دوم، ص 125 تا 132.

4-   جوزی. سید علی و همکاران، 1392، ارزیابی مخاطرات تصفیه‌خانه زرگنده تهران با استفاده از روش تلفیقی PHA و JSA، نشریه محیط‌زیست طبیعی، مجله منابع طبیعی ایران، دوره 66، شماره 3، ص 261-274.

5-     جوزی. سید علی، 1387، ارزیابی و مدیریت ریسک، چاپ اول، انتشارات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی- واحد تهران شمال، فصل دوم.

6-   احمدی. ح، فرد زارعی. ک، کارچانی. م، پور نجف. ع، عباسی. ع، 1389، ارزیابی ریسک به روش ETBA دریکی از واحدهای ریخته‌گری قزوین، هفتمین همایشسراسری بهداشت حرفه‌ای، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی قزوین.