Dangerous chemical enterprise safety system diagnosis grading evaluation system and method

Abstract

The invention relates to a dangerous chemical enterprise safety system diagnosis grading evaluation system and a dangerous chemical enterprise safety system diagnosis grading evaluation method, and aims to comprehensively and accurately evaluate the safety management level of an enterprise through a multi-dimensional and personalized evaluation method and provide scientific and objective evaluation results and improvement suggestions. The system comprises a plurality of evaluation modules for responsibility allocation rationality, planning ability, system execution ability, supervision and inspection ability, continuous improvement ability and the like, and customized evaluation can be carried out according to enterprise scales and types. Meanwhile, advanced technologies such as big data and artificial intelligence are introduced into the system, rapid and accurate evaluation data processing and analysis are achieved, improvement suggestions are automatically generated, and accurate safety management guidance is provided for enterprises. Through application of the system, dangerous chemical enterprises can find and solve problems in safety management in time, safety production efficiency and quality are improved, safety and stability of the production process are ensured, and a powerful guarantee is provided for sustainable development of the industry.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of safety management, and in particular to a system and method for diagnosing and grading safety systems of hazardous chemical enterprises. Background Art

[0002] At present, there are many hazardous chemical companies that "safety is the responsibility of the safety department" and "safety managers become data clerks". Moreover, the market is getting bigger and bigger. In order to cope with the inspections of regulatory authorities, the phenomenon of "two skins" and "multiple skins" is becoming more and more common, which increases internal friction in enterprises and is also one of the reasons for the frequent accidents. The regulatory authorities cannot "cure the root causes and symptoms" of safety hazards through continuous safety inspections. Only by allowing the internal system of the enterprise to operate autonomously can the "root causes and symptoms" of hazards be cured.

[0003] Therefore, a dangerous chemical enterprise safety system diagnosis and grading assessment system and method are needed to solve the above problems. Summary of the invention

[0004] In order to solve the problems of the prior art, the present invention provides a system and method for diagnosing and grading the safety system of a hazardous chemical enterprise.

[0005] In order to solve the above technical problems, the present invention is implemented through the following technical solutions: a dangerous chemical enterprise safety system diagnosis and grading evaluation system, comprising:

[0006] The responsibility allocation rationality assessment module is used to investigate and analyze the actual participation of each department in the enterprise in safety management, and generate reasonable responsibility allocation suggestions based on the investigation results;

[0007] "PDCA" quantitative assessment module, including planning capability assessment submodule, system execution capability assessment submodule, supervision and inspection strength assessment submodule and continuous improvement capability assessment submodule, used to quantitatively assess the planning, execution, supervision and improvement capabilities of the enterprise safety management system;

[0008] Activity quantitative evaluation module, used to quantitatively evaluate the implementation of safety-related activities such as enterprise safety production meetings, team activities, shift handovers, emergency drills, etc.

[0009] The grading assessment module performs a grading assessment on the enterprise safety system according to the assessment results of the responsibility allocation rationality assessment module, the "PDCA" quantitative assessment module and the activity quantitative assessment module.

[0010] In this implementation, the specific operation process is as follows:

[0011] Assessment of reasonableness of responsibility allocation

[0012] Research Analysis:

[0013] Use the responsibility allocation rationality assessment module to design and distribute questionnaires to investigate the actual participation of various departments in the company in safety management.

[0014] Collect questionnaire data and conduct preliminary analysis to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each department in safety management.

[0015] Generate suggestions:

[0016] According to the survey results, the responsibility allocation rationality assessment module automatically generates reasonable responsibility allocation suggestions.

[0017] Submit the recommendation report to the company's leadership for reference and decision-making.

[0018] “PDCA” quantitative evaluation

[0019] Planning ability assessment:

[0020] Use the planning capability assessment submodule to review the planning documents of the enterprise safety management system and evaluate its comprehensiveness, scientificity and feasibility.

[0021] Based on the evaluation results, make suggestions for planning improvements.

[0022] System execution assessment:

[0023] Through the system execution assessment sub-module, the implementation of the enterprise's safety management system is checked, including training, assessment, rewards and punishments, etc.

[0024] Record cases of poor implementation and make suggestions for improvement.

[0025] Supervision and inspection intensity assessment:

[0026] Use the supervision and inspection intensity assessment sub-module to evaluate whether the company's supervision and inspection of the safety management system is in place.

[0027] Record the problems found during supervision and inspection, and make suggestions for rectification.

[0028] Continuous Improvement Capability Assessment:

[0029] Through the continuous improvement capability assessment sub-module, we examine whether the enterprise has the awareness and ability to continuously improve the safety management system.

[0030] Provide suggestions for improvement to enterprises with weak continuous improvement capabilities.

[0031] Quantitative evaluation of activities

[0032] Activity log:

[0033] Use the activity quantitative evaluation module to record the implementation of safety-related activities such as enterprise safety production meetings, team activities, shift handovers, emergency drills, etc.

[0034] Number, categorize and archive activities.

[0035] Quantitative rating:

[0036] According to the preset scoring criteria, the execution of each activity is quantitatively scored.

[0037] Generate activity evaluation reports to show the scores and rankings of various activities.

[0038] Rating Assessment

[0039] Summary of evaluation results:

[0040] The grading assessment module collects the assessment results of the responsibility allocation rationality assessment module, the "PDCA" quantitative assessment module and the activity quantitative assessment module.

[0041] Summarize and organize the evaluation results.

[0042] Rating Assessment:

[0043] According to the preset grading criteria, the evaluation results are compared with the grading criteria.

[0044] Determine the rating results of the enterprise security system and generate a rating assessment report.

[0045] Results feedback:

[0046] Submit the grading assessment report to the company leadership and relevant departments.

[0047] Based on the evaluation results, targeted improvement suggestions are put forward to guide enterprises to improve their safety management systems.

[0048] In a specific implementation of the first aspect, the responsibility allocation rationality evaluation module further includes:

[0049] Questionnaire survey unit, used to distribute questionnaires to various departments of the enterprise to collect safety management participation data;

[0050] Data analysis unit, used to analyze questionnaire data and generate responsibility allocation recommendations.

[0051] In a specific implementation of the first aspect, the planning capability assessment submodule in the “PDCA” quantitative assessment module further includes:

[0052] Planning document review unit, used to review the planning documents of the enterprise safety management system;

[0053] Planning effectiveness evaluation unit is used to evaluate the implementation effect of planning documents.

[0054] In a specific embodiment, the activity quantitative assessment module further includes:

[0055] Activity recording unit, used to record the execution of various safety-related activities of the enterprise;

[0056] The quantitative scoring unit provides quantitative scoring of activity execution according to preset scoring criteria.

[0057] In a specific implementation of the first aspect, the grading assessment module further includes:

[0058] An evaluation result summary unit, used to summarize the evaluation results of each module;

[0059] The grading standard matching unit matches the assessment results with the grading standards according to the preset grading standards to obtain the grading results of the enterprise security system.

[0060] In the second aspect, the method for diagnosing and grading the safety system of hazardous chemical enterprises includes the following steps:

[0061] Step 1: Investigate and analyze the safety management participation of each department of the enterprise through the responsibility allocation rationality assessment module;

[0062] Step 2: Use the "PDCA" quantitative assessment module to quantitatively assess the planning, execution, supervision and improvement capabilities of the enterprise's safety management system;

[0063] Step 3: Quantitatively evaluate the implementation of various safety-related activities of the enterprise through the activity quantitative evaluation module;

[0064] Step 4: Based on the assessment results, use the grading assessment module to conduct a grading assessment of the enterprise security system.

[0065] The beneficial effects of the present invention are:

[0066] 1. The application of the safety system diagnosis and grading assessment system for hazardous chemicals enterprises has significantly improved the efficiency and standardization of enterprise safety management. Through the system's automated assessment function, enterprises can quickly identify weak links in safety management, such as uneven distribution of responsibilities and poor implementation of systems, and take targeted measures to improve them. This not only avoids the tediousness and subjectivity of manual assessment in traditional safety management, but also ensures the objectivity and accuracy of the assessment results, providing strong support for the safety management of enterprises;

[0067] 2. The system can clearly show the actual participation of each department in safety management through the responsibility allocation rationality assessment module, and help enterprises to reasonably allocate safety management responsibilities. This helps to avoid the one-sided understanding that "safety is the responsibility of the safety department", promotes cooperation and coordination between departments, and forms a joint force to jointly maintain enterprise safety. At the same time, clear responsibility allocation can also enhance employees' sense of responsibility and mission, and improve their enthusiasm and initiative in participating in safety management;

[0068] 3. The "PDCA" quantitative assessment module can quantitatively assess the planning, execution, supervision and improvement capabilities of the enterprise's safety management system, and provide the enterprise with scientific and objective assessment results. This helps the enterprise to discover potential problems in the safety management system and optimize the safety management strategy based on the assessment results. Through continuous improvement and optimization, the enterprise can continuously improve the safety management level and ensure the safety and stability of the production process;

[0069] 4. The activity quantitative evaluation module can quantitatively evaluate the execution of various safety-related activities of the enterprise, including safety production meetings, team activities, shift handovers, emergency drills, etc. This helps the enterprise understand the actual effect of the activities, thereby optimizing the content and form of the activities and improving the execution effect of the activities. In particular, the quantitative evaluation of emergency drill activities can significantly improve the company's emergency response capabilities and ability to deal with emergencies, ensuring that actions can be taken quickly and effectively in emergency situations to protect the safety of personnel and property;

[0070] 5. Through the evaluation results and feedback suggestions of the system, enterprises can continuously discover problems in the safety management system and take improvement measures to improve it. This helps to promote the continuous improvement of the safety management level of enterprises and build a long-term safety management mechanism. At the same time, the regular evaluation function of the system can also ensure the continued effectiveness of the enterprise's safety management system and provide strong guarantees for the sustainable development of enterprises. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0071] Figure 1 It is a schematic diagram of the overall system structure of the present invention.

[0072] Figure 2 It is a schematic diagram of the responsibility allocation rationality evaluation module of the present invention.

[0073] Figure 3 It is a schematic diagram of the "PDCA" quantitative evaluation module block of the present invention.

[0074] Figure 4 It is a schematic diagram of the activity quantitative evaluation module of the present invention.

[0075] Figure 5 It is a schematic diagram of the grading assessment module of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0076] The following will be combined with the embodiments of the present invention to clearly and completely describe the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without making creative work are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0077] like Figures 1 to 5 The hazardous chemical enterprise safety system diagnosis and grading assessment system shown includes: a responsibility allocation rationality assessment module, which is used to investigate and analyze the actual participation of various departments of the enterprise in safety management, and generate reasonable responsibility allocation suggestions based on the investigation results; a "PDCA" quantitative assessment module, including a planning ability assessment submodule, a system execution assessment submodule, a supervision and inspection intensity assessment submodule and a continuous improvement ability assessment submodule, which are used to quantitatively assess the planning, execution, supervision and improvement capabilities of the enterprise's safety management system; an activity quantitative assessment module, which is used to quantitatively assess the implementation of safety-related activities such as enterprise safety production meetings, team activities, shift handovers, emergency drills, etc.; a grading assessment module, which conducts a grading assessment of the enterprise's safety system based on the assessment results of the responsibility allocation rationality assessment module, the "PDCA" quantitative assessment module and the activity quantitative assessment module.

[0078] The responsibility allocation rationality assessment module further includes: a questionnaire survey unit, which is used to distribute questionnaires to various departments of the enterprise to collect safety management participation data; and a data analysis unit, which is used to analyze the questionnaire data and generate responsibility allocation suggestions.

[0079] The planning capability assessment submodule in the “PDCA” quantitative assessment module further includes: a planning document review unit, which is used to review the planning documents of the enterprise safety management system; and a planning effect evaluation unit, which is used to evaluate the implementation effect of the planning documents.

[0080] The activity quantitative evaluation module further includes: an activity recording unit for recording the execution of various safety-related activities of the enterprise; and a quantitative scoring unit for quantitatively scoring the execution of the activities according to preset scoring criteria.

[0081] The grading assessment module further includes: an assessment result summary unit for summarizing the assessment results of each module; a grading standard matching unit for matching the assessment results with the grading standards according to the preset grading standards to obtain the grading results of the enterprise security system.

[0082] The diagnostic and grading assessment method for the safety system of hazardous chemical enterprises includes the following steps:

[0083] Step 1: Investigate and analyze the safety management participation of each department of the enterprise through the responsibility allocation rationality assessment module;

[0084] Step 2: Use the "PDCA" quantitative assessment module to quantitatively assess the planning, execution, supervision and improvement capabilities of the enterprise's safety management system;

[0085] Step 3: Quantitatively evaluate the implementation of various safety-related activities of the enterprise through the activity quantitative evaluation module;

[0086] Step 4: Based on the assessment results, use the grading assessment module to conduct a grading assessment of the enterprise security system.

[0087] Example 1: Application of the safety system diagnosis and grading assessment system for hazardous chemicals enterprises Enterprise background:

[0088] A large chemical enterprise, the company is mainly engaged in the manufacture and sales of epoxy resins, alkyd resins, unsaturated polyester resins, silicone resins, amino resins, photocuring monomers, plasticizers and other products.

[0089] Audit Type

[0090] On-site audit of safety management system.

[0091] Audit Purpose

[0092] Through auditing, we can understand the current safety management status, system maturity and compliance of the enterprise. We can also evaluate the integrity, compliance, suitability and effectiveness of the safety management system. We can also find out the good practices and continuous improvement space and hidden dangers in the company's safety management, and put forward suggestions for improvement.

[0093] System Configuration:

[0094] Evaluation cycle: A comprehensive evaluation will be conducted every 3 years or annually.

[0095] Evaluation indicators: The main methods used in this audit are: on-site inspection, communication interviews, personnel capability testing, practical evaluation, document review, and questionnaire surveys.

[0096] Operation process:

[0097] 1. Audit initiation: Establish initial contact with the auditee to determine the feasibility of the audit.

[0098] 2. Audit preparation: 1) Review of the audited party’s documents; 2) Preparation of audit plan; 3) Establishment of audit team and allocation of audit tasks; 4) Preparation of audit documents.

[0099] 3. Audit implementation: 1) First meeting; 2) Audit implementation; 3) Issue clarification meeting; 4)

[0100] Last meeting.

[0101] Audit Basis and Standards

[0102] Audit Basis

[0103] Occupational Health and Safety Management System Requirements and Use Guidelines (GB / T 45001-2020)

[0104] Regulations on the Safety Management of Hazardous Chemicals

[0105] National Three-Year Action Plan for Special Rectification of Work Safety

[0106] "Guidelines for the Investigation and Management of Risk Hazards in Hazardous Chemical Enterprises" (Emergency

[2019] No. 78)

[0107] "Notice of the Ministry of Emergency Management on Issuing the Catalogue of Safety Classification and Rectification of Hazardous Chemical Enterprises (2020)" (Emergency

[2020] No. 84)

[0108] "Standards for Determining Major Production Safety Accident Hazards in Chemical and Hazardous Chemical Production and Operation Units (Trial)" (Safety Supervision General Administration No. 3

[2017] 121)

[0109] "Notice of the State Administration of Work Safety on the Announcement of the First Batch of Lists of Hazardous Chemicals Subject to Key Supervision" (No. 95 of the State Administration of Work Safety No. 3

[2011] )

[0110] "Notice of the State Administration of Work Safety on the Announcement of the Second Batch of Catalogues of Hazardous Chemical Processes Under Key Supervision and Adjustment of Some Typical Processes in the First Batch of Hazardous Chemical Processes Under Key Supervision" (No. 3 of the State Administration of Work Safety

[2013] )

[0111] "Interim Provisions on Supervision and Management of Major Hazard Sources of Hazardous Chemicals" (Order No. 40 of the State Administration of Work Safety)

[0112] Code for Fire Protection Design of Buildings (2018 Edition) (GB 50016-2014)

[0113] "Petrochemical Enterprise Design Fire Protection Standard (2018 Edition)" (GB 50160-2008)

[0114] "Fire Protection Standard for Engineering Design of Fine Chemical Enterprises" GB 51283-2020

[0115] Auditee’s management system documentation.

[0116] Factory-specific risk management

[0117] Good practical experience.

[0118] Auditing Standards

[0119] (1) Each element is scored according to the four stages of planning (P), execution (D), inspection (C), and continuous improvement (A). The evaluation of each profession is a combination of "PDCA" and on-site status (representation). The planning stage (P) of each element "PDCA" is 50 points, the execution stage (D) is 25 points, the inspection stage (C) is 15 points, and the feedback stage (A) is 10 points, which are used to measure the company's planning ability, execution ability, supervision and inspection strength, and independent operation ability. In addition to the "PDCA" evaluation of each profession, a 100-point status score is set to evaluate the company's on-site situation.

[0120] (2) Hidden dangers are divided into two categories: one is status type and the other is trace type. Status type hazards need to trace the root cause of the problem, and trace type hazards that occur frequently need to trace the root cause. (Occasional hidden dangers: less than or equal to 2 hidden dangers of the same type; frequent hidden dangers: more than 2 hidden dangers of the same type)

[0121] (3) Trace category: points will be deducted based on the proportion of planning, execution, supervision and inspection, and continuous improvement.

[0122] (4) Status category: 2 points will be deducted for each type of hidden danger, and the same criteria will be used to treat it as one type of hidden danger.

[0123] (5) The five-step method is used to trace the root cause: who will do it (responsibility), how to do it (system), whether it will be done (ability), whether it can be done (resources), and how it is done (assessment).

[0124] (6) The assessment of planning ability, execution ability, supervision and inspection strength, and independent operation ability are all worth 100 points, and the passing score is 75 points.

[0125] (7) The total score for the shift handover assessment and emergency drill assessment is 100 points, with a passing score of 60 points.

[0126] (8) The competency test consists of 30 questions in total, and a pass is obtained if 24 questions are answered correctly.

[0127] (9) The total comprehensive score is set at 100 points. In order to more accurately assess the status of the enterprise and motivate the enterprise to effectively improve, the evaluation results are set at four stages. See the following table:

[0128]

[0129] Implementation results:

[0130] The sampling method was adopted, through communication and interview, data review, on-site observation, questionnaire survey, online test, etc. The questionnaire survey involved 8 people at all levels and 15 people, reviewed the standardized operation data, and inspected the alkyd resin plant 1, epoxy plant 2, epoxy resin plant 3, section 1 (formerly epoxy plant 1), epoxy resin plant 3, section 3 (formerly epoxy plant 3), epoxy plant 6, unit 1 (formerly epoxy plant 6), desalination plant, oil furnace plant, unsaturated resin plant, silicone ester plant, polyether plant, light curing plant 1, light curing plant 3, plasticizer plant, amino plant 2, synthesis park VOC upgrading and transformation (RTO), 30 comprehensive utilization areas, **He-Nan warehouse area, synthesis industrial park Hebei raw material tank area, synthesis industrial park Hebei warehouse area, hazardous chemical warehouse (Phase III), raw material tank area of ​​the first industrial area of ​​the new industrial zone, raw material tank area of ​​the second industrial area of ​​the new industrial zone, regional control room 1, safety and information transformation and upgrading project (regional control room 2). This audit found 712 hidden dangers, including 8 major hidden dangers, 2 items of suspension of production and business for rectification or temporary suspension of production and business, and cessation of use of related facilities and equipment, 14 Class A hidden dangers, 39 Class B hidden dangers, and 659 Class C hidden dangers. There were 122 items in the safety management category, accounting for 17.1%; 82 items in the design and general drawing management category, accounting for 11.5%; 102 items in the process management category, accounting for 14.3%; 112 items in the equipment management category, accounting for 15.7%; 182 items in the electrical instrument management category, accounting for 25.6%; 112 items in the fire protection management category, accounting for 15.7%; 136 items in the document category, accounting for 19.1%; 133 items in the execution category, accounting for 18.7%; and 443 items in the field category, accounting for 62.2%.

[0131] Implementation effect:

[0132] Through systematic evaluation, the main problems in the management of production safety meetings in enterprises are that the safety committee meeting does not record the work report of the responsible leaders and does not follow up and feedback on the resolution of the issues raised in the previous meeting. The main reason is that the safety supervision department did not formulate the meeting agenda in advance, collect the report and discussion materials of various professional departments, and ensure that all the issues that need to be studied and resolved at the meeting are resolved.

[0133] Example 2: Enterprise background:

[0134] A large oil refining enterprise, the company's main equipment includes: polypropylene unit, white oil hydrogenation unit, special oil product unit, pentane unit, carbon dioxide unit, gas filling unit, oil product filling unit, and dock workshop.

[0135] System Configuration:

[0136] Audit Type

[0137] On-site audit of safety management system.

[0138] Audit Purpose

[0139] Through auditing, we can understand the current safety management status, system maturity and compliance of the enterprise. We can also evaluate the integrity, compliance, suitability and effectiveness of the safety management system. We can also find out the good practices and continuous improvement space and hidden dangers in the company's safety management, and put forward suggestions for improvement.

[0140] Audit Scope

[0141] The audit site covers: polypropylene unit, white oil hydrogenation unit, special oil product unit, pentane unit, carbon dioxide unit, gas filling unit, oil product filling unit, and dock workshop.

[0142] Audit Basis

[0143] Occupational Health and Safety Management System Requirements and Use Guidelines (GB / T 45001-2020)

[0144] Regulations on the Safety Management of Hazardous Chemicals (State Council Decree No. 591)

[0145] "Three-Year Action Plan for National Safety Production Special Rectification" (Safety Committee

[2020] No. 3)

[0146] "Guidelines for the Investigation and Management of Risk Hazards in Hazardous Chemical Enterprises" (Emergency

[2019] No. 78)

[0147] "Catalogue of Safety Classification and Rectification of Hazardous Chemical Enterprises (2020)" (Emergency

[2020] No. 84)

[0148] "Standards for Determining Major Production Safety Accident Hazards in Chemical and Hazardous Chemical Production and Operation Units (Trial)" (Safety Supervision General Administration No. 3

[2017] 121)

[0149] "Notice of the State Administration of Work Safety on the Announcement of the First Batch of Lists of Hazardous Chemicals Subject to Key Supervision" (No. 95 of the State Administration of Work Safety No. 3

[2011] )

[0150] "Notice of the State Administration of Work Safety on the Announcement of the Second Batch of Catalogues of Hazardous Chemical Processes Under Key Supervision and Adjustment of Some Typical Processes in the First Batch of Hazardous Chemical Processes Under Key Supervision" (No. 3 of the State Administration of Work Safety

[2013] )

[0151] "Interim Provisions on Supervision and Management of Major Hazard Sources of Hazardous Chemicals" (Order No. 40 of the State Administration of Work Safety)

[0152] Code for Fire Protection Design of Buildings (2018 Edition) (GB 50016-2014)

[0153] "Petrochemical Enterprise Design Fire Protection Standard (2018 Edition)" (GB 50160-2008)

[0154] Fire Protection Standard for Engineering Design of Fine Chemical Enterprises (GB 51283-2020)

[0155] Auditee’s management system documentation.

[0156] Plant-specific risk management.

[0157] Good practical experience.

[0158] Auditing Standards

[0159] (1) Each element is scored according to the four stages of planning (P), execution (D), inspection (C), and continuous improvement (A). The evaluation of each profession is a combination of "PDCA" and on-site status (representation). The planning stage (P) of each element "PDCA" is 50 points, the execution stage (D) is 25 points, the inspection stage (C) is 15 points, and the feedback stage (A) is 10 points, which are used to measure the company's planning ability, execution ability, supervision and inspection strength, and independent operation ability. In addition to the "PDCA" evaluation of each profession, a 100-point status score is set to evaluate the company's on-site situation.

[0160] (2) Hidden dangers are divided into two categories: one is status type and the other is trace type. Status type hazards need to trace the root cause of the problem, and trace type hazards that occur frequently need to trace the root cause. (Occasional hidden dangers: less than or equal to 2 hidden dangers of the same type, frequent hidden dangers: more than 2 hidden dangers of the same type)

[0161] (3) Trace category: points will be deducted based on the proportion of planning, execution, supervision and inspection, and continuous improvement.

[0162] (4) Current situation: 2 points will be deducted for each type of hidden danger, and the same criteria will be applied to treat each type of hidden danger as one.

[0163] (5) The five-step method is used to trace the root cause: who will do it (responsibility), how to do it (system), whether it will be done (ability), whether it can be done (resources), and how it is done (assessment).

[0164] (6) The assessment of planning ability, execution ability, supervision and inspection strength, and independent operation ability are all worth 100 points, and the passing score is 75 points.

[0165] (7) The total score for the shift handover assessment and emergency drill assessment is 100 points, with a passing score of 60 points.

[0166] (8) The competency test consists of 30 questions in total, and a pass is obtained if 24 questions are answered correctly.

[0167] (9) The total comprehensive score is set at 100 points. In order to more accurately assess the status of the enterprise and motivate the enterprise to effectively improve, the evaluation results are set at four stages. See the following table:

[0168]

[0169] Audit findings:

[0170] The audit team conducted an on-site audit of the company's safety management system. The audit was conducted by sampling, through communication interviews, data review, on-site observation, questionnaire surveys, online testing, etc. A questionnaire survey was conducted on 20 personnel at all levels, standardized operation data were reviewed, and the polypropylene unit, white oil hydrogenation unit, special oil unit, pentane unit, carbon dioxide unit, gas filling unit, oil filling unit, and dock workshop were inspected on-site to complete the audit task. A total of 220 hidden dangers were found in this audit, including 1 major hidden danger, 5 A-level hidden dangers, 1 B-level hidden danger, and 214 C-level hidden dangers. There are 70 safety management items, accounting for 31.8%; 11 design and general drawing management items, accounting for 5%; 31 process management items, accounting for 14.1%; 31 equipment management items, accounting for 14.1%; 60 electrical instrument management items, accounting for 27.3%; and 17 fire management items, accounting for 7.7%. There are 67 items of documents and materials, accounting for 30.5%; 67 items of execution, accounting for 30.5%; and 86 items of on-site, accounting for 39%.

[0171] Implementation effect:

[0172] Through systematic evaluation, the company discovered irregularities in safety management, such as unclear responsibilities and lax implementation of systems. Based on the evaluation results and feedback, the company took improvement measures, such as clarifying the allocation of responsibilities and strengthening the implementation of systems, which effectively improved the level of safety management. At the same time, the company also optimized the safety management system based on the evaluation results and improved the efficiency of safety management.

[0173] Although embodiments of the present invention have been shown and described, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that various changes, modifications, substitutions and variations may be made to the embodiments without departing from the principles and spirit of the present invention, and that the scope of the present invention is defined by the appended claims and their equivalents.

Claims

1. The safety system diagnosis and grading assessment system for hazardous chemical enterprises is characterized by: include: The responsibility allocation rationality assessment module is used to investigate and analyze the actual participation of each department in the enterprise in safety management, and generate reasonable responsibility allocation suggestions based on the investigation results; "PDCA" quantitative assessment module, including planning capability assessment submodule, system execution capability assessment submodule, supervision and inspection strength assessment submodule and continuous improvement capability assessment submodule, used to quantitatively assess the planning, execution, supervision and improvement capabilities of the enterprise safety management system; Activity quantitative evaluation module, used to quantitatively evaluate the implementation of safety-related activities such as enterprise safety production meetings, team activities, shift handovers, emergency drills, etc. The grading assessment module performs a grading assessment on the enterprise safety system according to the assessment results of the responsibility allocation rationality assessment module, the "PDCA" quantitative assessment module and the activity quantitative assessment module.

2. The system and method for diagnosing and grading safety systems of hazardous chemical enterprises according to claim 1 are characterized by: The responsibility allocation rationality assessment module further includes: Questionnaire survey unit, used to distribute questionnaires to various departments of the enterprise to collect safety management participation data; Data analysis unit, used to analyze questionnaire data and generate responsibility allocation recommendations.

3. The system and method for diagnosing and grading safety systems of hazardous chemical enterprises according to claim 1 are characterized by: The planning capability assessment submodule in the "PDCA" quantitative assessment module further includes: Planning document review unit, used to review the planning documents of the enterprise safety management system; Planning effectiveness evaluation unit is used to evaluate the implementation effect of planning documents.

4. The system and method for diagnosing and grading safety systems of hazardous chemical enterprises according to claim 1 are characterized by: The activity quantitative assessment module further includes: Activity recording unit, used to record the execution of various safety-related activities of the enterprise; The quantitative scoring unit provides quantitative scoring of activity execution according to preset scoring criteria.

5. The system and method for diagnosing and grading safety systems of hazardous chemical enterprises according to claim 1 are characterized by: The grading assessment module further comprises: An evaluation result summary unit, used to summarize the evaluation results of each module; The grading standard matching unit matches the assessment results with the grading standards according to the preset grading standards to obtain the grading results of the enterprise security system.

6. The method for diagnosing and grading the safety system of hazardous chemical enterprises is characterized by: The following steps are involved: Step 1: Investigate and analyze the safety management participation of each department of the enterprise through the responsibility allocation rationality assessment module; Step 2: Use the "PDCA" quantitative assessment module to quantitatively assess the planning, execution, supervision and improvement capabilities of the enterprise's safety management system; Step 3: Quantitatively evaluate the implementation of various safety-related activities of the enterprise through the activity quantitative evaluation module; Step 4: Based on the assessment results, use the grading assessment module to conduct a grading assessment of the enterprise security system.

Images