한국환경보건학회지 (Journal of Environmental Health Sciences)

  • 제44권3호
  • /
  • Pages.217-226
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 1738-4087(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-8616(eISSN)
한국환경보건학회 (Korean Society of Environmental Health)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

화학사고 장외영향평가 제도의 종합위험도 결정 체계 개선을 위한 고찰

Discussion for Improvement of Decision System of Total Risk in Off-site Risk Assessment

  • 최우수 (화학물질안전원 사고예방심사과) ;
  • 류태권 (화학물질안전원 사고예방심사과) ;
  • 곽솔림 (화학물질안전원 사고예방심사과) ;
  • 임형준 (화학물질안전원 사고예방심사과) ;
  • 정진희 (화학물질안전원 사고예방심사과) ;
  • 이지은 (화학물질안전원 사고예방심사과) ;
  • 김정곤 (화학물질안전원 사고예방심사과) ;
  • 백종배 (한국교통대학교 안전공학과) ;
  • 윤준헌 (화학물질안전원 사고예방심사과) ;
  • 류지성 (화학물질안전원 사고예방심사과)
  • Choi, Woosoo (Accident Prevention and Assessment Division, National Institute of Chemical Safety) ;
  • Ryu, Taekwon (Accident Prevention and Assessment Division, National Institute of Chemical Safety) ;
  • Kwak, Sollim (Accident Prevention and Assessment Division, National Institute of Chemical Safety) ;
  • Lim, Hyeongjun (Accident Prevention and Assessment Division, National Institute of Chemical Safety) ;
  • Jung, Jinhee (Accident Prevention and Assessment Division, National Institute of Chemical Safety) ;
  • Lee, Jieun (Accident Prevention and Assessment Division, National Institute of Chemical Safety) ;
  • Kim, Jungkon (Accident Prevention and Assessment Division, National Institute of Chemical Safety) ;
  • Baek, Jongbae (Department of Safety Engineering, Korea National University of Transportation) ;
  • Yoon, Junheon (Accident Prevention and Assessment Division, National Institute of Chemical Safety) ;
  • Ryu, Jisung (Accident Prevention and Assessment Division, National Institute of Chemical Safety)
  • 투고 : 2017.04.23
  • 심사 : 2018.05.08
  • 발행 : 2018.06.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: Despite the positive effects of Off-site risk assessment (ORA) system such as prevention of chemical accidents, some problems have been constantly raised. The purpose of this study is to analyze the problems that have occurred through the implementation of the ORA system for the past three years and to suggest reasonable directions for improvement in the future. Methods: In order to identify the problems with the methodology and procedure of ORA system, we analyzed statutes, administrative rules and documents related to the ORA system. A survey of ORA reviewers in National Institute of Chemical Safety was conducted to investigate the weight of determinants considered when judging the level of total risk in ORA. Results: In this study, we found out the uncertainty of the estimation of the number of people in the impact range in the procedure of the risk assessment of individual handling facilities, the lack of quantitative risk analysis methods for environmental receptors, and the ambiguity of the criteria for the total risk. In addition to suggesting solutions to the problems mentioned above, we also, suggested a decision tree for total risk in ORA. Conclusion: We anticipate that the solutions including the systematic decision tree for total risk suggested will contribute to the smooth operation of the ORA system.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Drogaris G. Learning from major accidents involving dangerous substances. Safety Sci. 1993; 16(2): 89-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0925-7535(93)90008-2
  2. Lee J, Choi D. A study on the improvement of chemical accident response system in view of the national disaster management system. Fire Sci Eng. 2015; 29(5): 73-78. https://doi.org/10.7731/KIFSE.2015.29.5.073
  3. Lee D, Lee T, Shin C. Study on improvement measures for prevention and countermeasure of chemical accident. Fire Sci Eng. 2016; 30(5): 137-143. https://doi.org/10.7731/KIFSE.2016.30.5.137
  4. Lee D, Kim S, Yun J, Shin G, Yoo B. A study on the improvement plan of transportation plan for safety management of hazardous chemical vehicles. J Korean Soc Hazard Mitig. 2017; 17(6): 151-157.
  5. Lee I, Hwang M, Shin Y, Woo I. A study on offsite consequence analysis of optimal operation by risk management of petroleum chemical plant. J Risk Manage. 2017; 28(1): 1-45.
  6. Lee D, Lee T, Shin C. Study of the improvement of hazardous chemical management for chemical accident prevention. Fire Sci Eng. 2017; 31(1): 74-80. https://doi.org/10.7731/KIFSE.2017.31.1.074
  7. Lee D, Lee T, Shin C. Study on improvement measures for prevention and countermeasure of chemical Accident. Fire Sci Eng. 2016; 30(5): 137-143. https://doi.org/10.7731/KIFSE.2016.30.5.137
  8. Chungsik Y, Seunghon H, Jihoon P, Sunju K, Sangah L, Kwonseob L, et al. Comparison between the chemical management contents of laws pertaining to the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of the Employment and Labor. J Environ Health Sci. 2014; 40(5): 331-345.
  9. Ministry of Environment. Regulation on preparation of off-site risk assessment report. Notification 2018-7 2018.
  10. Kim J, Ryu J, Ryu T, Kwak S, Lim H, Choi W, et al. Suggestions for increasing utilization of KORA for supporting off-site risk assessment system. J Environ Health Sci. 2018; 44(2).
  11. Suh Y, Park J, Gan S, Cho S, Han S. Improvement measures for chemical accident policies in the Chemicals Control Act and measures to support the industry (II). Korea Environment Institute; 2017.
  12. Park J, Suh Y, Gan S, Lee S. Improvement measures for chemical accident policies in the Chemicals Control Act and measures to support the industry (I). Korea Environment Institute; 2016.
  13. Kim K, Chun Y, Hwang Y, Lee I, Kwak I. Establishment of the appropriate risk standard through the risk assessment of accident scenario. J Korean Soc Environ Eng. 2017; 39(2): 74-81. https://doi.org/10.4491/KSEE.2017.39.2.74
  14. Lee J, Kim S, Yang W, Yoon J, Ryu J, Kim J, et al. Investigation of the guidance levels for protecting populations from chemical exposure and the estimation of the level of concern using acute toxicity data. J Environ Health Sci. 2018; 44(1): 44-54.
  15. Ministry of Environment. Chemical Control Act. 2017.
  16. American Petroleum Institute. Based resource document of risk based inspection: API-580. New York: 2001.
  17. American Petroleum Institute. Risk-based inspection-Basic resource document: API-581. New York: 2000.
  18. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Available: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Pages/default.aspx].
  19. Cook WA. A compendium of world-wide occupational exposure limits. Akron, Ohio: American Industrial Hygiene Association; 1987.
  20. Paustenbach DJ. Occupational exposure limits, pharmacokinetics, and unusual work schedules. In Cralley LJ, Cralley LV, (Eds). Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1985. p. 111-277.
  21. Dourson ML, Stara JF. Regulatory history and experimental support of uncertainty (safety) factors. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 1983; 3(3): 224-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2300(83)90030-2
  22. McMichael AJ, Spirtas R, Kupper LL. An epidemiologic study of mortality within a cohort of rubber workers, 1964-72. J Occup Environ Med. 1974; 16(7): 458-464.
  23. ECHA. Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Helsinki, Finland: European Chemicals Agency; ECHA-2010-G-19-EN 2012.
  24. National Institute of Chemical Safety. Emergency response guidebook. 2017.
  25. Health and Safety Executive. Reducing risks, protecting people. 2010.
  26. National Institute of Chemical Safety. Notification of safe distance from outside wall of hazardous chemical handling facility to protection object. Notification 2014-251 2014.
  27. Lee B, Park C, Song H. A study on the assessment of hazardous properties of the oxidizing solids. Fire Sci Eng. 2009; 23(5): 9-16.
  28. Eckhoff RK. Dust explosions in the process industries Burlington: Gulf Professional Publishing; 2003.
  29. Kang S. Protection of dust explosion. Fire Sci Eng. 1991; 5(2): 43-49.