| 摘要: | 職業衛生的三大工作內容為認知(Recognition)、評估(Evaluation)和控制(Control)發生於工作場所的所有危害因子，危害因子控制方法包含工程控制、行政管理、防護具的使用、健康管理等，而工程控制為其首要選擇，本研究以某高分子化學工廠品檢中心(實驗室)為對象進行危害鑑別、評估及控制改善之風險評估研究。本研究首先依實驗室之作業特性，設計安全觀察鑑別表，依人、機、料、法、環區分為機具設備、作業程序、環境需求、人員狀況等四個風險構面，以實驗室早班作業人員為本研究的觀察對象，依實驗室工作型態與檢測樣本送樣頻率來區分三個觀察時間點進行安全觀察，並訂定四個風險構面的鑑別分數若低於風險標準90分則具有潛在風險，需進行改善。 本研究依不同風險構面鑑別品檢中心實驗室之平均分析結果顯示，機具設備92分、作業程序89分、環境需求95分、人員狀況89分，其中作業程序最高為94分最低為83分，人員狀況最高為96分最低為85分，此兩個風險構面平均分數低於風險標準分數，且依據不同觀察時間所鑑別出的風險分數有明顯高低落差。然而依不同時間鑑別結果顯示在工作量較多的早上九點至十一點和下午兩點至三點的時段，作業程序為85分，人員狀況為87分；在中午十一點到下午兩點的時段，作業程序為89，人員狀況為89分。綜合以上結果顯示作業程序與人員狀況具有潛在危害，反觀機具設備與環境需求雖高於鑑別風險標準，也需依不可接受之風險進行改善。 為去除不安全狀況及勞工之不安全行為，本研究使用加強宣導並實施教育訓練進而提高人員對安全衛生的認知，並且於教育訓練前後進行評量測驗，探討實施教育訓練的成果績效，教育訓練對象為所有觀察對象，包含實驗室的管理者與操作者，測驗試題分為安全衛生篇與儀器設備篇，經教育訓練績效結果顯示，於安全衛生篇管理者後測比前測分數提升32%；操作者後測比前測分數提升34%，於儀器設備篇管理者後測比前測分數提升5%；操作者後測比前測分數提升7%。為降低經鑑別結果得知分數較高潛在危害的機具設備及環境需求，本研究以其是否為可接受之風險進行環境改善，使用作業風險評估方法探討改善前後之風險等級，氣相層析分析作業進行VOCs逸散改善、橡膠滾輪機作業進行降低被夾被捲危害、流動性分析作業改善VOCs散出危害、乳膠分析作業改善酒精燈使用作業環境、物性分析作業則將地面式作業控制器改為桌上型作業控制器減少絆倒危害，其風險等級改善前為C或B改善後為B或A。 本研究的鑑別潛在危害對於高分子化學工廠品檢中心實驗室實施改善對策減少職業災害的發生率有明顯的幫助並有改善之成效。
The three most important job contents in occupational health were recognize, evaluate and control all hazard factors which occurred in workplaces. Ways of controlling hazard factors included engineering control, managing administrative system, using protective equipment and managing health. Of all of the above, engineering control was the first choice, this research was based on a case study of polymer chemical factory’s quality control center (Laboratory) to distinguish, evaluate, control hazards and to improve the risk. First, our research designed safety observation list depending on laboratory’s operating characteristics, and according to man, machine, material, method and environment, we separated the list to four risk perspectives which included construction equipment, operation process, environment needs and personnel situation. Our study used morning shaft workers as our observed participants, and separated three observation time according to the laboratory working patterns and sample presentation frequency; we also set up four risk perspectives’ scores. If the scores were lower than 90, then it may have potential risks, the company should improve it. According to the average analysis that different risk perspectives quality control laboratory showed, construction equipment was 92 points, operation process was 89 points, environment needs was 95 points and personnel situation was 89 points. Among them, the highest score of operation process was 94 points and the lowest score was 83 points; the highest score of personnel situation was 96 points and the lowest score was 85 points. This two risk’s perspectives average scores were lower than risk standard fraction, and there was an obvious gap between the scores depended on different observation time. However, according to the different observation time results showed that operation process was 85 points and personnel situation was 87points during nine to eleven in the morning and two to three in the afternoon; also, operation process was 89 points and personnel situation was 89 points during eleven to two at noon. These periods appeared to be proved that there were more workload among these times. Based on the results above showed that operation process and personnel situation had potential risks. Although construction equipment and environment needs’ scores were higher than risk standard, they should also get improved according to different risk situations. To remove the unsafe situation and workers’ unsafely behaviors, our research strengthened the guide and achieved training in order to raise workers’ cognitions for labor safety health. We had assessment tests after the training in order to examine the results, and all of the workers who took the training were calculated as observed participants, including the laboratory’s supervisors and operators. The quizzes were separated into labor safety health and equipment, through training results showed that during labor safety health, supervisors’ post-test scores were 32 percent higher than pre-test scores; operators’ post-test scores were 34 percent higher than pre-test scores. During equipment, supervisors’ post-test scores were 5 percent higher than pre-test scores and operator’ post-test scores were 7 percent higher than pre-test scores. In order to reduce the higher potential equipment and environment needs, our study conducted environmental improvements, by using operational risk evaluation to improve the risk level before and after; by using gas chromatography job analysis to improve VOCs fugitive emission control; by using rubber roller machine to reduce the risk of being pinched; by using emulsion analysis to improve the working environments when using alcohol burners; by using liquidity analysis to improve diffusion harm and by using texture analysis to change ground type working controllers to desktop working controllers in order to reduce the harm of stumble. The risk levels were C or B before improving, and were changed to B or A after improving. Our study was to distinguish the potential harm for polymer chemical factory’s quality control center, and had obviously reduced the incidence of occupational hazards also developing improvements in helping the company. |
