تعیین معیارهای مؤثر بر جانمایی نقاط تجمع ایمن: یک بررسی جامع و مطالعه دلفی

نویسندگان
فاطمه آزاد
مهناز میرزا ابراهیم طهرانی2
سیدعلی جوزی
سید محمدرضا میری لواسانی
دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
مقدمه: مدیریت شرایط اضطراری در صنایع فرآیندی و پالایشگاه‌ها از اهمیت ویژه‌ای برخوردار بوده و یکی از اصول کلیدی در مدیریت چنین شرایطی، تعیین نقاط تجمع ایمن است. مطالعه حاضر به‌منظور استخراج معیارهای مؤثر بر جانمایی نقاط تجمع ایمن در قالب یک مطالعه دلفی انجام‌شد.

روش: این مطالعه به‌صورت توصیفی_اکتشافی در شرکت ملی پتروشیمی اجراشد. در فاز اول، به‌منظور شناسایی و استخراج معیارهای مؤثر بر جانمایی نقاط تجمع ایمن، یک بررسی متون جامع و مطالعه کتابخانه‌ای انجام و معیارهای موجود از استانداردها، راهنماها و دستورالعمل‌های علمی موجود استخراج‌شد. سپس، در فاز دوم، این معیارها به‌صورت نظام‌مند در قالب یک مطالعه دلفی توسط 15 متخصص مدیریت شرایط اضطراری بررسی، غربال و پالایش‌شده و لیست نهایی معیارها تعیین‌شد.

یافته‎ها: پس از بررسی جامع متون، در مرحله اول دلفی ابزاری شامل 21 معیار ایجاد و در دو گروه عوامل داخلی (12 معیار) و عوامل بیرونی (9 معیار) طبقه‌بندی و برای خبرگان ارسال‌شد. نهایتأ، این مطالعه دلفی پس از اجرای 2 مرحله با تعیین 10 عامل داخلی و 7 عامل بیرونی و مجموعأ 17 معیار مؤثر برای تعیین نقاط تجمع ایمن در شرایط اضطراری در صنایع فرآیندی پایان یافت.

نتیجه‎گیری: توجه به معیارهایی همچون مساحت پذیرش افراد، پتانسیل اثرپذیری از حادثه، سهولت دسترسی، مدت‌زمان پیمایش و قابلیت دید و پایش، محل تجمع اضطراری جایگزین در داخل سایت و تعداد محل‌های تجمع ایمن در داخل سایت می‌تواند به جانمایی مناسب نقاط تجمع ایمن در صنایع فرآیندی کمک نماید.
کلیدواژه‌ها
مدیریت شرایط اضطراری
نقطه تجمع ایمن
مطالعه دلفی
صنایع فرآیندی

عنوان مقاله English

Effective Criteria for the Location of Safe Assembly Points: A Comprehensive Review and Delphi Study

نویسندگان English

Fateme Azad
mahnaz Mirzaebrahim Tehrani
Seyed Ali Jozi
Seyed Mohammadreza Miri Lavasani
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

Introduction: Emergency management in process industries and refineries is critical and the designation of safe assembly points is a core principle in handling such situations. This study identifies the key criteria influencing the safe assembly points location using a Delphi study approach.

Methods: This descriptive-exploratory study was conducted at the National Petrochemical Company. In the first phase, a comprehensive literature review was performed to identify and extract criteria for locating safe assembly points based on standards, guidelines, and scientific protocols. In the second phase, these criteria were systematically evaluated, screened and refined through a Delphi study involving 15 emergency management experts to establish a finalized list of criteria.

Results: Following a thorough literature review, the initial Delphi phase resulted in a tool containing 21 criteria, which were classified into two groups: internal factors (12 criteria) and external factors (9 criteria). This tool was then shared with the expert panel. Ultimately, after two rounds, the Delphi study concluded with 10 internal and 7 external factors, yielding 17 effective criteria for determining safe assembly points in process industry emergencies.

Conclusion: Criteria such as personnel capacity, vulnerability to incidents, ease of access, evacuation time, visibility, monitoring capabilities, alternative emergency assembly sites within the facility, and the number of safe assembly points on-site can significantly support the effective positioning of safe assembly points in process industries.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Emergency Management
Safe Assembly Point
Delphi Study
Process Industries
1. Golbabaie F, Eskandari D, Rezazade Azari M, Jahangiri M, Rahimi M, Shahtaheri J. Health risk assessment of chemical pollutants in a petrochemical complex. Iran occupational health. 2012;9(3):11-21.
2. Rahimpour R, Farhadi S, Jalali M. Lifetime cancer risk and hazard quotient of BTXs compounds in Iranian petrochemical and petroleum depot workers. Iranian Journal of Health, Safety & Environment. 2018:982-90.
3. Hesam G, Vahabi Shekarloo M, Atamaleki A, Jalali M, Hajipour-Verdom B, Moradpour Z. Health risk assessment of inhalation exposure to dry fogging of hydrogen peroxide in a dental clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2022;29(50):75338-43.
4. Habibi EA, Keshavarzi M, Yousefi RHA, Hasanzadeh A. Outcome analysis of major accidents and determining the safety integrity level of processes in sour water stripping unit of gas refinery using lopa technique. Health System Research. 2011.
5. Abdolhamidzadeh B, Abbasi T, Rashtchian D, Abbasi SA. Domino effect in process-industry accidents–An inventory of past events and identification of some patterns. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2011;24(5):575-93.
6. Jalali M, Jalali S, Motlagh MS, Mardi H, Tomarkandi VF, Jahangiri M. Health risk assessment of occupational exposure to BTEX compounds in petrol refueling stations in Mashhad. J Neyshabur Univ Med Sci. 2014;1(1):19-27.
7. Ouazraoui N, Nait-Said R, Bourareche M, Sellami I. Layers of protection analysis in the framework of possibility theory. Journal of hazardous materials. 2013;262:168-78.
8. Moradpour Z, Vahabi Shekarloo M, Mosavi Jarrahi SA, Sedaghat Z, Hesam G. Occupational Exposure to Metal Working Fluids and Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review. Journal of Chemical Health Risks.500(1000).
9. Jafari MJ, Zarei E, Badri N. The quantitative risk assessment of a hydrogen generation unit. international journal of hydrogen energy. 2012;37(24):19241-9.
10. Sh S L, MJ J. Determining safety integrity level on a hydrogen production unit with application of the of protection analysis method. 2014.
11. Arendt JS, Lorenzo DK. Evaluating process safety in the chemical industry: A user's guide to quantitative risk analysis: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.
12. Shah S, Fischer U, Hungerbühler K. A hierarchical approach for the evaluation of chemical process aspects from the perspective of inherent safety. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2003;81(6):430-43.
13. Negahban AR, Ghorbani SF, Rahimpoor R, Jalali M, Rahiminejad S, Soltanian A, et al. Evaluating occupational exposure to carcinogenic volatile organic compounds in an oil-dependent chemical industry: a case study on benzen and epichlorohydrin. 2014.
14. Majid NDA, Shariff AM, Loqman SM. Ensuring emergency planning & response meet the minimum Process Safety Management (PSM) standards requirements. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2016;40:248-58.
15. Ebrahemzadih M, Nazari R, Rahimimoghadam S, Jalali M, Foroghinasab F. Human error probability in the emergency evacuation. Sigurnost: časopis za sigurnost u radnoj i životnoj okolini. 2023;65(4):435-43.
16. KLJ JB, Jim Burtles K, MMLJ HF. Introduction to Emergency Evacuation: Getting Everybody Out When It Counts: Rothstein Publishing; 2016.
17. Nolan DP. Handbook of fire and explosion protection engineering principles: for oil, gas, chemical and related facilities: William Andrew; 2014.
18. Jamshidi Solukloei HR. Identification of Safe Assembly Points in Emergencies in a Gas Refinery of the South Pars Gas Complex Using Fuzzy Logic Model. scientific journal of rescue and relief. 2019;11(4):275-86.
19. Squier J. Emergency Action & Operations Planning. Professional Safety. 2023;68(2):35-40.
20. Koffel WE. Changes to NFPA 101-2018: NFPA 101-2018: Life Safety Code has three important updates that are vital to fire protection engineers. Consulting Specifying Engineer. 2019;56(1):26-31.
21. Atmaca E, Aktas E, Öztürk HN. Evaluated Post-Disaster and Emergency Assembly Areas Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques: A Case Study of Turkey. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8350. 2023.
22. Hoscan O, Cetinyokus S. Determination of emergency assembly point for industrial accidents with AHP analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2021;69:104386.
23. Savas S, Cenani S, Çagdas G. Selection of emergency assembly points: A case study for the expected Istanbul earthquake. Multiple Criteria Decision Making: Beyond the Information Age. 2021:37.
24. Ebrahimi A, Kalatpour O, Mohammadfam I. Representation of a Framework for Determining Emergency Muster Points in Process Industries Using Integrated FAHP-FTOPSIS Methods. Journal of Occupational Hygiene Engineering. 2022;9(3):153-65.
25. Landeta J. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological forecasting and social change. 2006;73(5):467-82.
26. Shukor SA, Ng GK. Environmental indicators for sustainability assessment in edible oil processing industry based on Delphi Method. Cleaner Engineering and Technology. 2022;10:100558.
27. Fukuma S, Shimizu S, Niihata K, Sada K-e, Yanagita M, Hatta T, et al. Development of quality indicators for care of chronic kidney disease in the primary care setting using electronic health data: a RAND-modified Delphi method. Clinical and experimental nephrology. 2017;21:247-56.
28. Vahdani Charzekhon H, Harasani A, AbediBizeki V, Ghadi MH. Site Selection of Multi-Purpose Urban Shelters with Passive Defense Approach (Case Study: Bojnourd City). Passive Defense Quarterly. 2021;12(1):49-58.
29. Gonulsen M, Menten C. The Selection of Temporary Shelter Areas with Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for the Ankara Province. Natural Hazards Application and Research Center. 2021;7(1):159-75.
30. Farhadi S, Mohammadfam I, Kalatpour O, Ghasemi F. Determining performance shaping factors to assess human error in the emergency response team in chemical process industries: A case study. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics. 2023;29(1):294-305.
31. Yeganeh R, Mohammadfam I, Soltanian A, Mirzaei Aliabadi M. An integrative fuzzy Delphi decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) study on the risk perception-influencing factors. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics. 2023;29(3):1135-46.
32. Jalali M, Habibi E, Khakzad N, Aval SB, Dehghan H. A novel framework for human factors analysis and classification system for medical errors (HFACS-MES)—A Delphi study and causality analysis. Plos one. 2024;19(2):e0298606.