Comprehensive prevention and control system for work safety in metallurgical enterprises based on risk quantitative evaluation

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.S1.0004

Abstract

Abstract:

To enhance the work safety management level of metallurgical enterprises, a comprehensive prevention and control system for safety production in metallurgical enterprises based on risk quantitative evaluation is constructed. Based on five key elements, namely personnel, equipment, materials, environment, and management and work safety standardization requirements, a four-dimensional prevention and control mechanism was designed, integrating on-site control, risk inspection and control, system operation management, and safety supervision. Additionally, a safety risk assessment model was established by considering factors influencing on-site risk dynamics. By incorporating multi-source heterogeneous data (both quasi-static and unstructured) monitored by the system, a dynamic quantitative risk assessment of enterprises was achieved. The results demonstrate that the developed comprehensive prevention and control system for work safety based on the four-dimensional prevention and control mechanism effectively ensures compliance of enterprises with work safety standardization. Furthermore, the comprehensive work safety risk assessment model and multi-source heterogeneous data monitored by the system enable real-time quantitative calculation of enterprise safety indices. A higher index indicates better safety conditions at grid points, while a lower index reflects poorer safety status. This method relies on real-time and multi-source heterogeneous data monitoring, providing an objective, comprehensive, and accurate reflection of enterprise safety status.

Key words: quantitative risk assessment, metallurgical enterprise, comprehensive prevention and control of work safety, safety risk, on-site control

CLC Number:

X938

LIAO Guangdong, YU Shilei. Comprehensive prevention and control system for work safety in metallurgical enterprises based on risk quantitative evaluation[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(S1): 21-28.

Figures/Tables 13

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

References 16

[1]	新质生产力驱动中国有色金属工业高质量发展[J]. 资源再生, 2024(10): 56-60.
	New quality productivity drives high-quality development of China's non-ferrous metal industry[J]. Resource Recycling, 2024(10): 56-60.
[2]	王晓振, 于晓林, 王金良, 等. 铜冶炼企业安全风险管控方法分析[J]. 世界有色金属, 2024(24): 10-12.
[3]	余春青, 杨芳, 毋勇, 等. 石化企业大检修现场安全网格化监管方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(增1): 6-10.
	YU Chunqing, YANG Fang, WU Yong, et al. Grid-based supervision method of safety in major overhaul site of petrochemical enterprises[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(S1): 6-10. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.S1.0350
[4]	国家安全生产监督管理总局, 国家煤矿安监局. 标本兼治遏制煤矿重特大事故工作实施方案[EB/OL].(2016-05-30). https://www.chinamine-safety.gov.cn/zfxxgk/fdzdgknr/tzgg/201605/t20160530_348971.shtm.
[5]	国务院安委会办公室. 关于实施遏制重特大事故工作指南构建双重预防机制的意见[EB/OL].(2016-10-11). https://www.mem.gov.cn/awhsy_3512/awhbgswj/201610/t20161011_247664.shtml.
[6]	国家煤矿安全监察局. 煤矿安全生产标准化管理体系基本要求及评分方法(试行)[EB/OL].(2024-11-01). https://www.chinamine-safety.gov.cn/zfxxgk/fdzdgknr/tzgg/202411/t20241101_508321.shtml.
[7]	郭立杰. 企业安全生产监管效能提升途径探讨[J]. 北京石油管理干部学院学报, 2022, 29(5): 43-46.
	GUO Lijie. Discussion on the ways to improving the efficiency of enterprise safety production supervision[J]. Journal of Beijing Petroleum Managers Training Institute, 2022, 29(5) : 43-46.
[8]	陈小林, 屈世甲, 佘九华, 等. 基于风险管控的煤矿安全综合防控体系[J]. 工矿自动化, 2021, 47(8): 15-19.
	CHEN Xiaolin, QU Shijia, SHE Jiuhua, et al. Comprehensive prevention and control system of coal mine safety based on risk management and control[J]. Journal of Mine Automation, 2021, 47(8) : 15-19.
[9]	GB/T 33000—2016,企业安全生产标准化基本规范[S].
	GB/T 33000-2016, Guideline of China occupational safety and health management system[S].
[10]	陈国华, 王新华. 基于I-PDCA的安全生产监管工作实施方法研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(8): 8-14.
	CHEN Guohua, WANG Xinhua. Study on implementation method for work safety supervision based on I-PDCA[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2011, 21(8): 8-14.
[11]	宋张君. 发电企业风险管控4M屏障理论模型构建及其机制研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(增1): 1-7.
	SONG Zhangjun. Research on 4M barrier theory model construction and mechanism for risk management and control of power generation enterprise[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(S1): 1-7. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.S1.0006
[12]	李爽, 贺超, 鹿乘, 等. 煤矿智能双重预防机制与智能安全管控平台研究[J]. 煤炭科学技术, 2023, 51(1): 464-473.
	LI Shuang, HE Chao, LU Cheng, et al. Research on intelligent dual prevention mechanism and intelligent security control platform of coal mine[J]. Coal Science and Technology, 2023, 51(1): 464-473.
[13]	李爽, 贺超, 许锟. 煤矿安全双重预防机制理论、应用与发展研究[J]. 中国煤炭, 2021, 47(10): 23-30.
	LI Shuang, HE Chao, XU Kun. Research on the theory, application and development of dual prevention mechanism of coal mine safety[J]. China Coal, 2021, 47(10): 23-30.
[14]	金洪伟, 于世雷, 徐刚, 等. 煤矿水害风险量化评价方法[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2020, 16(4): 107-113.
	JIN Hongwei, YU Shilei, XU Gang, et al. Quantitative evaluation method of water hazard risk in coal mine[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2020, 16(4): 107-113.
[15]	刘小龙. 安全木桶原理在煤矿安全生产管理中的应用[J]. 湖北农机化, 2021(1): 87-88.
	LIU Xiaolong. Application of safety barrel principle in coal mine safety production management[J]. Hubei Agricultural Mechanization, 2021(1): 87-88.
[16]	周毅, 张竞, 周宁, 等. 融入木桶原理的综合评估[J]. 计算机工程, 2006, 32(17): 197-199. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-3428.2006.17.069
	ZHOU Yi, ZHANG Jing, ZHOU Ning, et al. Synthetic assessment with cask theory[J]. Computer Engineering, 2006, 32(17): 197-199. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-3428.2006.17.069

比较准则	被比较准则	比值
管控措施未落实	风险未按期管控	2
管控措施未落实	存在未闭合隐患	1/4
管控措施未落实	隐患超期未整改	1/7
管控措施未落实	隐患整改不合格	1/9
管控措施未落实	“三违”未处置	1/3
风险未按期管控	存在未闭合隐患	1/3
风险未按期管控	隐患超期未整改	1/5
风险未按期管控	隐患整改不合格	1/8
风险未按期管控	“三违”未处置	1/2
存在未闭合隐患	隐患超期未整改	1/3
存在未闭合隐患	隐患整改不合格	1/5
存在未闭合隐患	“三违”未处置	1/2
隐患超期未整改	隐患整改不合格	1/2
隐患超期未整改	“三违”未处置	2
隐患整改不合格	“三违”未处置	3

评价指标	措施未落实	未按期管控	未闭合隐患	超期未整改	整改不合格	“三违”未处置		权重
措施未落实	1	2	1/4	1/7	1/9	1/3		0.043 9
未按期管控	1/2	1	1/3	1/5	1/8	1/2		0.042 2
未闭合隐患	4	3	1	1/3	1/5	1/2		0.101 3
超期未整改	7	5	3	1	1/2	2		0.256 2
整改不合格	9	8	5	2	1	3		0.424 1
“三违”未处置	3	2	2	1/2	1/3	1		0.132 4
合计							1.000 1
不一致系数							0.038 29

评价指标	等级	等级扣分值对应关系	扣分值
风险管控措施未落实	低风险	↔	0.5
	一般风险	↔	1
	较大风险/ 重大风险	↔	3
风险未按期检查	低风险	↔	1
	一般风险	↔	2
	较大风险/ 重大风险	↔	5
存在未闭合隐患	一般隐患	↔	5
存在未闭合隐患	重大隐患	↔	70
隐患超期未整改	一般隐患	↔	10
隐患超期未整改	重大隐患	↔	90
隐患整改不合格	一般隐患	↔	20
隐患整改不合格	重大隐患	↔	100
“三违” 未处置	一般“三违”	↔	5
	较重“三违”	↔	20
	严重“三违”	↔	50
报警数据	一票否决,出现报警数据时,评分直接为0分