A Study on OSH Performance Measurement by PROMETHEE Method in Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plants

Abstract

Occupational accidents in the world and in our country affect the energy sector as a serious problem. It has become important to take the necessary precautions for the uninterrupted continuation of energy. The effective prevention of occupational accidents and diseases by coal-fired power plants depends on their evaluation of OHS performance and continuing their improvement efforts. In the implementation phase of the OHS performance model in coal-fired thermal power plants, a total of 170 OHS performance measurement criteria, including 8 main criteria and 162 sub-criteria, were determined and 162 sub-criteria were evaluated with the PROMETHEE method. As a first step, the sub-criteria of the three riskiest sections in terms of OHS in coal-fired thermal power plants, which were previously selected with AHP, were evaluated by 10 occupational safety experts in the range of 0-100 for each coal-fired power plant alternative. Performance factor results were obtained by using the "Visual PROMETHEE" package program to obtain PROMETHEE results with criterion weights. The data obtained from alternative power plants were evaluated and prioritized with the PROMETHEE method based on the weights determined with the help of AHP according to the OHS performance measurement model we proposed, and coal-fired power plants were ranked. This study; An objective OHS performance measurement method based on measurable indicators, reflecting OHS performance in the most accurate way, practical to use, has been developed and applied in coal-fired thermal power plants.

Keywords

• Energy
• OHS performance
• coal-fired power plants
• Promethee method

Kaynakça

1. Bağcı, H., & Yüksel Yiğiter, Ş. (2019). BİST’te yer alan enerji şirketlerinin finansal performansının SD ve WASPAS yöntemleriyle ölçülmesi.
2. Ersoy N. A study on occupational health and safety performance model in thermal power plants. Ph.D. Thesis, Üsküdar University, Istanbul, 2023.
3. Zlaugotne, B., Zihare, L., Balode, L., Kalnbalkite, A., Khabdullin, A., & Blumberga, D. (2020). Multi-criteria decision analysis methods comparison. Rigas Tehniskas Universitates Zinatniskie Raksti, 24(1), 454-471.
4. Yılmaz, B., Dağdeviren, M. Comparative Analysis of PROMETHEE and Fuzzy PROMETHEE Methods in the Equipment Selection Problem, Gazi University Journal of Engineering and Architecture Faculty. 2010; 25(4), 811-826.
5. Sotiropoulou, K. F., & Vavatsikos, A. P. (2021). Onshore wind farms GIS-Assisted suitability analysis using PROMETHEE II. Energy Policy, 158, 112531.
6. Şenkayas, H., Hekimoğlu, H. Application of PROMETHEE Method to the Multi-Criteria Supplier Selection Problem. Journal of Productivity. 2013; (2), 63-80.
7. Zorkirişçi, E. D., & Rençber, Ö. F. BWM Tabanlı TOPSIS, PROMETHEE ve COPRAS Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması: Bankaların Finansal Performansları Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 14(39), 1030-1045.
8. Bağcı, H., & Esmer, Y. (2016). PROMETHEE yöntemi ile faktoring şirketi seçimi. Beykent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(2).

9. Atıcı, K. B., & Ulucan, A. (2009). Enerji Projelerinin Değerlendirilmesi Sürecinde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımları ve Türkiye Uygulamaları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 161-186.
10. Vivas, R.; Sant'anna, Â.; Esquerre, K.; Freires, F. Çok kriterli model ile sürdürülebilirlik performansının ölçülmesi: Bir vaka çalışması. Sürdürülebilirlik 2019, 11, 1–13.
11. Brans, J.P., Vincke, P. A Preference Ranking Organization Method: The PROMETHEE Method for MCDM. Management Science, 1985; 31(6), 647-656.
12. Brans, J.P., Vıncke, P., Mareschal, B. How to Select and How to Rank Projects: The PROMETHEE Method. European Journal of Operational Research, 1986;24, 228-238.
13. Dağdeviren, M., Eraslan, E. Supplier Selection with PROMETHEE Ranking Method. Gazi University Journal of Engineering and Architecture, 2008; 23(1), 69-75.