Criteria and methods for assessing occupational risk. Study of the stages of the methodology for determining occupational risk

The main harmful effect of noise exposure on the human body is the risk of hearing loss (HL).

The risk groups include workers of many professions, including: blacksmiths, weavers, miners, etc.

The main risk factors in the formation of PS are: noise exposure, age, the presence of a symptom of "white fingers", drug consumption and cholesterol levels. From the average PS value at 4000 Hz equal to 27.3 dB (mean experience 16 years), noise gave 17.8 dB, age 7.6 dB, white finger symptom 1.5 dB, drug consumption 1 dB, level cholesterol 0.5 dB.

The methodology for calculating the risk of PS from noise complies with the provisions of the ISO 1999.2 (1990) standard, which takes into account gender, age, noise level and work experience in it.

The level of PS associated with age and noise H "of workers exposed to noise is calculated by the formula:

H" \u003d H + N - HN / 120, (1)

where: H is the level of PS associated with age, dB;

N - PS associated with noise, dB.

The last term of the formula begins to influence at values ​​H + N > 40 dB.

Formula (1) is applicable only to the corresponding quantile values ​​H", H and N: from 0.05 to 0.95 with a step of 0.05, the reference values ​​of the quantiles are 0.1, 0.5 and 0.9. Estimation of PS for the quantile 0.9 means that 90% of individuals can have FP data and above (minimum FP), similarly for the 0.1 quantile (maximum FP) The 0.5 quantile reflects average FP values.

The PS value due to noise at speech frequencies (arithmetic mean for frequencies of 0.5, 1 and 2 kHz), hereinafter at speech frequencies, for quantiles is equal to:

N=(u+vℓgΘ) X (L Aeq - L ABOUT ) 2 , (2)

where: Θ – work experience, years;

u, v, L O take from Table 2;

L aeq is the equivalent noise level equal to the MPC, which, according to SN 2.2.4/2.1.8-562-96, is 80 dB(A) and coincides with the lower exposure value requiring measures under the EU Directive 2003/10/EC.

According to the value of PS obtained from formula (1), the degree of PS is determined according to the data in Table. 3, and then - the probability of developing PS (%) from Table 4, which will be the occupational risk of PS for the employee.

2.3 Example of occupational risk calculation ps

For example, it is required to estimate the probability of PS in a worker (M) aged 55 years who has been working for 30 years in a working environment associated with an equivalent noise level of 100 dB(A).

1. We find the PS values ​​at speech frequencies for quantiles 0.1, 0.5, 0.9, using the initial data in Table. 1, according to the formula (2):

N 0.1 \u003d (-0.30 + 0.96 ℓg 30) (80 - 100) 2 \u003d 44.8 dB (A),

N 0.5 \u003d (-0.32 + 0.82 ℓg 30) (80 - 100) 2 \u003d 20.4 dB (A),

N 0.9 = (-0.20 + 0.22 ℓg 30) (80 - 100) 2 = 5.0 dB(A).

2. According to Table 2, by extrapolation, we determine the value of PS at speech frequencies depending on age:

H 0.1 = 19 dB(A),

H 0.5 = 6.5 dB(A),

H 0.9 = 3.0 dB(A).

3.According to formula (1), we find the total indicator of PS H ′ for quantiles:

H ′ 0.1 \u003d 44.8 + 19 - 19 54.8 / 120 \u003d 55.13 dB (A),

H ′ 0.5 \u003d 20.4 + 6.5 \u003d 26.9 dB (A),

H ′ 0.9 \u003d 5.0 + 3.0 \u003d 8.0 dB (A).

4. According to the values ​​of the total indicators of PS N ′ for quantiles using the data in Table. 3 determine the degree of PS, which correspond to:

For the 0.9 quantile as "signs of noise impact on the body",

For the 0.5 quantile as "ΙΙ degree (moderate hearing loss)",

For the 0.1 quantile as "ΙΙΙ degree (significant hearing loss)".

5. According to the table. 4 using the extrapolation method, the probability of developing a professional PS in this case is 72, 44.5 and 25%, i.e. it is most likely that the worker may have ΙΙ - ΙΙΙ degree of PS or, which is the same, occupational risk PS ΙΙ - ΙΙΙ degree (moderate and significant hearing loss).

table 2

Initial data for calculations

Table 3

PS value depending on age at speech frequencies

Table 4

Degrees of hearing loss

Table 5

Probability of developing professional PS, (%)

Occupational risk* - this is the probability of causing harm to health as a result of exposure to harmful and (or) dangerous production factors in the performance of duties by the employee employment contract or other cases.

Occupational risk class** - the level of occupational injuries, occupational morbidity and insurance costs, prevailing by type economic activity policyholders.

06/24/2003 The Chief State Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation approved the methodology for assessing occupational risks R 2.2.1766-03. 2.2 “Occupational health. Guidance on occupational health risk assessment for workers. Organizational and methodological foundations, principles and evaluation criteria. Management". This document is advisory in nature. There are no other state-approved methods for calculating occupational risks as of today.

Let's analyze the above method. Table 1 shows how, based on the method R 2.2.1766-03, occupational risk is assessed depending on the class of working conditions (according to the results of a special assessment of working conditions) and the index of occupational diseases.

Table 1

Classes of working conditions, occupational risk categories and urgency of preventive measures

The practice of applying the methodology R 2.2.1766-03 shows that there are certain omissions in it, which undoubtedly affects the adequate assessment of occupational risk. As can be seen from the table above, the method R 2.2.1766-03 takes into account only the risk of occupational diseases, and the probability of injury is not considered. Therefore, according to the method, it can be concluded that work places ax with a class of working conditions 1 (optimal) there is no occupational risk at all (equal to zero). Meanwhile, professional risk exists in any activity, which is confirmed, in particular, by the recording of accidents and injuries in offices with class 1 working conditions.

To do this, you need to combine the following data:

1. an integral assessment of working conditions based on the results special assessment working conditions (SOUT);
2. health indicators of employees based on the results periodic medical examinations;
3. individual characteristics of the employee, which will allow introducing appropriate correction factors into the value of the individual pro-risk, depending on the length of service and age of the employee

Let's take a closer look.

1. Integral assessment of working conditions in the workplace― is based on a quantitative assessment of 14 main indicators of harmful factors.

2. Employee health indicator- this is an indicator of the employee's belonging to a certain group of dispensary observation, which almost completely coincides with the interpretation of the results of the prophylactic examination of the adult working population, adopted by the Ministry of Health of the country. The difference is that an employee who has signs of the impact of factors on the body is assigned a health indicator of "4", and an employee who is suspected of an occupational disease is assigned a value of "5" (Table 2).

table 2

Employee health indicator

3. Individual characteristics of the employee is the age and experience in the profession. (Table 3)

* Art.209 Labor Code RF

** Art. 3 of the Federal Law No. 125-FZ of July 24, 1998 “On Compulsory Social Insurance against Occupational Accidents and Occupational Diseases”

21.01.2018 15:19:00

Unfavorable working conditions, occupational injuries and occupational diseases worsen the demographic situation in the country and lead to serious economic losses. One of the reasons for the low efficiency of economic mechanisms for protecting workers from occupational risks postulated by Federal Law No. 125-FZ “On Compulsory Social Insurance against Occupational Accidents and Occupational Diseases” is the sectoral principle of the insurance rate that is based on it, which leads to the leveling of differences in working conditions in various industry organizations .

For all organizations in the industry there is a single insurance rate, which does not encourage the employer to improve working conditions at the workplace. In addition, the value of the insurance rate is based on the total costs in the industry made on payments for damage to health due to occupational diseases and accidents at work in the past year, while it is generally recognized that the actual level of occupational morbidity and occupational injuries in the country is unreasonably low and does not reflect the real likelihood of damage to the health of the worker in the process of work. According to many experts, it is necessary to move from the current model of compulsory social insurance to a more realistic concept of insurance rates based on the principle of taking into account the individual professional risk of employees of the organization.

To date, the country has mainly worked out theoretical aspects occupational risk assessment, its regulatory framework, principles, methodological approaches, criteria and indicators. However, a number of tasks practical application theory of assessment and management of occupational risk remains unresolved, and, above all, in Russia today there is no single unified methodology for assessing occupational risk.

As you know, occupational risk is closely related to the characteristics of working conditions and the labor process (as the impact of a man-made system on a person), the biological state of a person and his health and protection from risks. Therefore, in order to quantify the individual occupational risk of an employee, it is necessary to develop quantitative methods for assessing the harmfulness and danger of working conditions in the workplace, taking into account the existing risks of injury and the protection of workers by means personal protection(hereinafter - PPE), as well as quantitative methods for assessing the health status of workers.

In this case, the methodology must meet the following requirements:

• be relatively simple and accessible;
• provide a quantitative assessment of the level of individual and collective occupational risk;
• take into account working conditions, the state of health of the employee, occupational morbidity and injuries;
• ensure reproducibility;
• be suitable for assessing the effectiveness of preventive measures;
• be used for the purposes of the compulsory social insurance system.

To date, due to lack of demand, the development of such methods has not been brought to practical application.

The purpose of this research is to develop methods for calculating individual occupational risk and an integral indicator of the level of occupational risk in an organization, taking into account working conditions and the state of health of an employee.

The work was carried out on the basis of State contracts dated October 6, 2009, concluded between the Social Insurance Fund Russian Federation(FSS of the Russian Federation) and the Institution of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences Research Institute of Occupational Medicine (NII MT RAMS): No. 273 "Development of a Method for calculating individual occupational risk depending on working conditions and the state of health of an employee" and No. 274 "Development of a Method for calculating an integral indicator the level of professional risk in the organization”.
Assessment of the state of working conditions at workplaces in organizations of the Russian Federation is carried out as part of the mandatory procedure for attesting workplaces, regulated by the Procedure for attesting workplaces for working conditions, approved. by order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia dated August 31, 2007 No. 569 ( Currently, the Procedure for attestation of workplaces for working conditions is in force, approved. By order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia dated April 26, 2011 No. 342n, - approx. ed.).

During hygiene assessment working conditions, the degree of possible harm to the health of an employee is determined by comparing the measured and assessed levels of harmful production factors with hygienic standards (maximum concentration limit, maximum allowable control). Depending on the magnitude of the deviation of the measured or estimated levels from the standards, on the basis of hygienic criteria, a class of hazard and danger is established for exposure to workers of several production factors, the general class of working conditions at the workplace is established by:

• according to the highest class and degree of harmfulness;
• in the case of a combined effect of 3 or more factors belonging to class 3.1, the overall assessment of working conditions corresponds to class 3.2;
• with a combination of 2 or more factors of classes 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 - working conditions are rated one degree higher, respectively.

As the experience of certification of workplaces in terms of working conditions shows, different combinations of production factors with a different combination of hazard and (or) hazard classes established for each of them can generally operate at different workplaces. However, when establishing a general class of working conditions at the workplace according to the highest class of an individual factor or a certain combination of values ​​of the highest classes, the total harmfulness of working conditions (a set of production factors) in accordance with the specified method is not assessed adequately to the actual combination of all acting factors with established different classes of conditions labor.

It is quite obvious that at this method in general assessment the harmfulness of factors that do not have the most high class harmfulness is not taken into account. Refusal to take into account the harmfulness (classes) of the totality of factors leads in practice to different results for different cases of combining the number and range of production factors. As a result, the established general class of working conditions does not always fully characterize the total harmfulness of working conditions at the workplace.

This can be indirectly characterized by the fact that the general class of working conditions 3.2 is assigned under the action of three or more factors belonging to class 3.1, or with one factor belonging to class 3.2, and, finally, in the case when there is one factor with class 3.2 and at the same time there are several factors with classes 3.1 .

It should also be noted that with this generally accepted assessment, it is difficult to compare working conditions at various workplaces, the conditions of which are characterized by a different combination of factors in terms of nomenclature and number, which have a different combination of established hazard and hazard classes.

Thus, based on the analysis, a general conclusion can be drawn that when performing a hygienic assessment during the certification of workplaces, the established general class of working conditions at the workplace is a necessary, but insufficient quantitative assessment of the harmfulness of working conditions at the workplace.

It is quite obvious that when reforming the system of compulsory social insurance based on the principles of taking into account the individual occupational risk of workers, methods are needed that provide a more detailed differentiation of the general harmfulness of working conditions for workers within a single system that takes into account the total harmfulness of all production factors operating at the workplace, including the risk of injury. and protection of PPE workers.

The presence of a system for an adequate quantitative determination of the harmfulness and danger of working conditions will make it possible to objectively assess working conditions at various workplaces and, accordingly, more effectively manage occupational risks. Quantification the degree of risk of damage to the health of workers from the action of harmful and dangerous factors working environment and workload according to the probability of health disorders, taking into account their severity, serves as a rationale for making management decisions to limit risk and optimize working conditions for employees.

The authors propose an assessment of the total harmfulness and danger of working conditions in the workplace under the complex influence of various production factors to be carried out on the basis of the developed integral assessment of working conditions. In accordance with the proposed method, the weighting of the classes of working conditions determined during the attestation of workplaces is carried out by assigning points to them depending on the possible impact of working environment factors on the worker's body, characterized by the index of occupational diseases - Ip (Guideline R 2.2.1766-2003). The higher the score, the greater the discrepancy between the actual state of working conditions for this factor and the current hygienic standards and the more pronounced becomes its dangerous and / or harmful effect on the body.

The integrated assessment of working conditions also takes into account the magnitude of the risk of injury and the protection of workers with PPE. The weighting of the risk and protection of PPE workers is carried out in accordance with the rule set out below.

The integral assessment of working conditions is determined on the basis of three indicators:

First - indicator of the harmfulness of working conditions at the workplace - characterizes the total harmfulness of working conditions at the workplace. The symbol of the indicator is PV;
Second- indicator of the risk of injury to an employee at the workplace - characterizes the danger of working conditions based on the risk of injury at the workplace. The symbol of the indicator is RT;
The third - indicator of the protection of an employee with personal protective equipment - characterizes the protection of an employee with personal protective equipment - PPE. The symbol for the indicator is OZ.

The hazard indicator (HI) is determined in points depending on the classes of working conditions established on the basis of measuring and evaluating the levels of factors of the working environment and the labor process during the certification of workplaces. The number of established points "v", corresponding to the classes of working conditions, is taken in accordance with Table. one.

The PV indicator is calculated by expression (1) depending on the classes of working conditions established for all factors acting in the workplace:

where B f - the sum of points for all factors at a given workplace, characterizing the actual level of working conditions, is determined by the expression (2):

where v i - weight in points, which is set for each production factor, depending on the class of working conditions in accordance with table. 2.1;
m is the number of production factors present at a given workplace;
C d - the sum of points for all factors of the workplace, assuming that their harmfulness during certification was assessed by class 2 (permissible). In this case, the weight in points for each production factor will be equal to 2 (v i = 2), and the total score will be (3):

Where Kbm = 0.5 is the coefficient of reduction to a dimensionless form, points.

To determine the possibility of interval grouping of the PV indicator in order to assess the limits of the scale, changes in the value of the PV indicator for all possible values ​​of the general class of harmful working conditions at the workplace were considered. The results of the analysis are presented in table. 2, which shows the calculated values ​​of PV obtained for jobs with harmful working conditions.

Given in table. 2, the lower limit values ​​​​of the PV indicator for working conditions with varying degrees of harmfulness and danger are presented in Table. 3.

The grouping of the PV indicator relative to the negative impact of working conditions was made by shifting to the left the lower calculated value of the PV indicator for classes higher than 3.2.

Given in table. 3 data on the lower limits of the PV indicator allow us to consider them as levels of the IR indicator. Based on the correspondence of the lower limit values ​​of PV to the general assessment of working conditions at the workplace (to the general class of harmfulness of working conditions obtained during certification of workplaces), the harmfulness of each level can be characterized similarly to the classes of hygienic assessment (Table 4).

The range of change in the values ​​of the PV indicator for classes of working conditions at the workplace, calculated depending on the degree of harmfulness and danger of production factors, established on the basis of Guideline R 2.2.2006-05 based on the results of attestation of workplaces,
for organizations of different industries, is given in Table. five.

Comparison of the ranges of change in the PV index for various classes of working conditions at the workplace, given in Table. 4 and 5 shows that they are close or coincide, which confirms the correctness of the established gradation of the ranges of change in the PV indicator for all five accepted levels and allows us to extend the accepted interval scale to the results of attestation of jobs in organizations related to other types of economic activity.

The worker injury risk indicator at the workplace characterizes the danger of working conditions based on an assessment of the risk of injury at the workplace. The symbol of the indicator is RT.

Risk is defined in the paper as a combination of the probability of causing damage and the severity of this damage (GOST R 51898-2002). In relation to the organization’s labor protection management system, the key concept of “labor activity” (GOST 12.0.230-2007) is introduced into the definition of risk, as a result, the risk is defined as a combination of the probability of labor activity dangerous developments, injury or other harm to human health caused by this event. In the latest edition of OHSAS 18001, "damage to health" has been replaced by "impairment of health", which is more in line with the expert method of assessment.

As a result of risk determination by the expert method, for each hazard identified in the workplace, based on the application of the risk assessment matrix (RMA), the risk value R = 1 ÷ 25 (matrix 5 * 5) is obtained.

While all identified workplace hazards are characterized in terms of injury risk and potential ill health, injury risk information is used to determine the injury risk score. Naturally, the information collected in the Registers about possible consequences for health and safety is provisional (expert's prior estimate).

The identification and assessment of risks in the workplace is carried out on the basis of the identified elements of risk:

• gravity possible damage to health and safety (injury) from identified hazards in the workplace;
• probabilities causing this damage.

The magnitude and degree of risks in the workplace are determined by an expert method using a risk assessment matrix (RMA) built on the basis of established risk elements. Risk Assessment Matrix contains vertically five levels of severity of consequences and five levels of probability (frequency) of an accident - horizontally: matrix (5 * 5).

Each severity level along the vertical axis (subjective severity scale) and each probability level along the horizontal axis (subjective frequency scale) are assigned rank scores of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, which correspond to the values severity of consequences And event probability according to the description of a certain situation (according to the scenario) and qualitative characteristics event frequency (scenario ranking).

Values gravity on the vertical scale of the severity of the consequences, the matrices are provided with numbers indicating the value of the rank (1, 2, 4, 5), and are indicated by letters (N, Mi, Mo, S and C - by the first letters English words characterizing each level).

Each severity level has description corresponding situations in ascending order of severity:

(1) N [N egligible - English insignificant, unimportant, unimportant, ignored]: no injury, minor damage, impact can be neglected;
(2) Mi [Mi nor-Englishunimportant, unimportant, minor, minor]: minor damage, minor injury, health and safety impact negligible: consequences are easily remedied, cleanup costs are low;
(3) Mo [Mo derate-Englishmoderate, temperate]: health and safety impact - minor, moderate injury, lost time injury, incident with moderate outcomes: presence of accidental releases, clean-up is not associated with large costs;
(4) S [S erious-Englishserious, important, important, substantial]: long-term lost-time accidents, the impact on the health and safety of personnel is tangible, an incident with serious consequences: minor damage, significant equipment malfunction, elimination of the consequences is associated with significant costs;
(5) C[C critical-English critical, demanding, disapproving]: Fatalities, critical health and safety impacts, major destruction, total disruption of equipment, significant resource-intensive cleanup.

Probability values ​​on a horizontal scale (subjective scale of frequency (probability)) are marked with letters and have the following characteristics of the frequency of a possible event or probability [in square brackets a short generally accepted probability characteristic is indicated]:

(1) A- event will almost never happen - frequency per year 10 -4 - 10 -6
[implausible];
(2) B- event occurs rarely - frequency per year 10 -2 - 10 -4 [unlikely];
(3) C- probability of an event for the considered period of time is about 0.5 (50 to 50%) - frequency per year 10 -1 - 10 -2 [Random];
(4)D- event most likely to occur - frequency per year 1 - 10 -1 [Probable];
(5) E- the event is almost certain to occur - frequency per year > 1 [Frequent].

For each hazard identified at the workplace, the identified consequence, expressed as the possibility of injury and (or) the possibility of deterioration in health status (illness), is subjected to the operation of determining the risk value according to the MOR
(Table 6).

As a rule, the content of the consequences is taken for possible damage. To determine the severity of damage, it is necessary to select the appropriate rank on the MPA severity scale (number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

To this end, the intended health or safety impact is compared with the scenario description for all levels of severity (N, Mi, Mo, S and C). From these, the level that best describes the intended health or safety impact (injury potential) is selected. As a result, the severity level will be determined - the number and designation of the severity level on a severity scale, for example, (3) Mo, (4) S, etc.

In order to determine the probability of causing the expected damage, the available information on the frequency of such damage or events with similar consequences is compared with all levels of probability along the horizontal axis - the subjective scale of frequency (A, B, C, D, E). The level of probability that is best described, in the judgment of the assessor, is chosen to correspond to the frequency of the anticipated event (health or safety consequences with a specified severity). As a result, the level of probability is determined - the number and designation of the level on the subjective scale of frequency (probability), for example, 2 (B), 3 (C), 4 (D), etc.

After determining the level of expected severity and the level of probability (estimated frequency), the risk value in accordance with this matrix is ​​determined by multiplying the row number and column number in accordance with the risk definition. The greater the possible damage and (or) the higher the probability of damage (the greater the product in the cell located at the intersection of the row and column), the greater the risk.

Example for MOP reading: the result of H4 is at the intersection of the row corresponding to the level of severity (4) S, and the column corresponding to the level of frequency (probability) * (1) * A. * (4 \u003d 4 * 1). The same H4 result is at the intersection of the row corresponding to the severity level (1) N, and the column corresponding to the frequency (probability) level (4) * D * (4 = 1 * 4).

The risk value R, determined by the MOR, varies from R = 1 to R = 25. Based on a comparison of all levels of severity and probability with cases known from practice, the risks determined by the MOR, depending on the magnitude, are divided into low (1 - 4), medium ( 5 - 12) and high (15 - 25) risks (see MOR cells highlighted with different intensities and Table 2.7). Thus, the boundaries between low, medium and high risks are determined by expert opinion, based on the best correspondence between the results of certain risks and possible cases in practice.

Risk assessment for acceptability (acceptability) is based on the data in Table. 7.

Thus, the result of injury risk assessment consists of an indication of the magnitude and degree of risk:

• low (H): H1; H2; H3; H4
• medium (C): C5; C6; C8; C9; C10; C12
• high (H): B15; B16; IN 20; B25.

The injury risk index depending on the degree of risk is determined in accordance with
from table. 8.

The safety of PPE workers at the workplace is considered to be ensured if, for all high and medium risks included in the PPE Worker Protection Assessment Protocol, the range of PPE actually issued to the employee according to the PPE accounting card corresponds to the list of risks, and ensures the prevention or reduction of hazardous and harmful production factors .

The protection of PPE workers is recognized as not ensured if the specified correspondence between the risks and the issued PPE is not met, in relation to at least one risk. Therefore, the indicator of protection shows which risks in the workplace are reduced (eliminated) with the help of PPE.

The indicator of protection of workers with personal protective equipment - OZ and injury risk score RT can be determined on the basis of an assessment of these indicators:

The assessment of the injury risk indicator corresponds to the assessment of the injury safety of the workplace in accordance with the Procedure for attesting workplaces for working conditions, approved by order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation dated August 31, 2007 No. 569 (order No. 569 is not currently applied - approx. ed.) ;

The assessment of the security indicator (OS) corresponds to the assessment of the provision of PPE workers in accordance with the Procedure for attesting workplaces for working conditions, approved by order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation dated August 31, 2007 No. 569 ( currently, instead of certification of workplaces for working conditions, a special assessment of working conditions is being carried out, in accordance with Federal Law No. 426-FZ of December 28, 2013 - approx. ed.).

The integrated assessment of working conditions (IUT) at the workplace, taking into account the impact of production factors with different hazard classes, assessing the risk of injury and assessing the protection of the worker with personal protective equipment is determined depending on the value of the PV indicator.

The minimum positive (other than zero) theoretical value of the indicator of harmfulness and danger of working conditions PV min at the employee's workplace is calculated based on the assumption that there is one factor at the workplace that has a working conditions class equal to 3.1. (4 points), and the remaining factors have a class of working conditions equal to 2 (2 points), then PV min = 1.

The maximum theoretical value of the indicator of harmfulness and danger of working conditions PV max at the employee's workplace is calculated on the assumption that at the workplace there are all fifteen factors defined by hygienic criteria that have the highest class in terms of working conditions.

At the same time, 3.2 class of working conditions (8 points) for the light environment, 3.3 class of working conditions
(16 points) for the severity and intensity of labor and 4th class of working conditions (64 points) for the remaining twelve factors (4):

The basis for determining the integral assessment is the principle of ranking comparable working conditions according to their harmfulness and potential danger to the life and health of an employee under the complex impact of harmful and dangerous production factors.

This contributes to the preparation of the calculation base for further objective calculation of the individual occupational risk of an employee and the creation of a system for assessing and controlling occupational risks as a whole. Ranking is performed according to quantitative indicators reflecting the different degree of harmfulness of working conditions in the workplace and their grouping depending on the magnitude of the level of exposure to harmful factors.

Taking into account the assessment of the risk of injury to the worker (RT) and the assessment of protection by personal protective equipment (PPE), it is possible to rank working conditions, consisting of six levels. Each level is assigned its own rank, indicated in Table 9. The specific value of the P rank for the workplace is determined in accordance with the combination of the values ​​of the RT and OZ indicators established for this workplace.

Determination of the integral assessment (IOUT) of the hazard and hazard of working conditions at the workplace, taking into account the impact of production factors with different hazard classes, based on the ranking of the workplaces of the organization with PV >= 1, is performed according to the formula (5) :

Where PV is an indicator of the harmfulness of the working conditions of an employee at his workplace, calculated by the formula (1);
P - rank, determined in accordance with the values ​​​​of RT and OZ for a given workplace according to Table. nine;
100 - coefficient of proportionality;
2334 is a number that characterizes all theoretically possible unique combinations of values ​​of PV >= 1, RT and OZ.

If the value of the indicator of harmfulness of working conditions at the employee's workplace is equal to zero (PV = 0), then the value of IOHT = 0.02. For practical calculations, the maximum value of the integral assessment of working conditions can be taken as the value of IOUT = 15.

When assessing an employee's occupational risk, personalized data is personal data supplemented with information about working conditions and data on the results of an employee's health assessment, including during a specialized medical examination.

The results of workplace certification and biomedical research are the main input data for assessing occupational risks.

As for age, the need to take it into account is due to the fact that with an increase in work experience, age, as a rule, also increases, that is, a person ages, the compensatory capabilities of his body decrease, which can become one of the reasons for the development of certain health disorders, especially amid unsatisfactory working conditions. That is why age parameters are always used for the purposes of differential diagnosis of identified changes in the state of health in order to solve the problem of causal relationships between the state of health of an employee, his age and length of service.

In the process of research on the development of the Methodology for calculating the probability of an employee’s disability depending on the state of working conditions at the workplace, it was shown that, firstly, the probability of developing occupational disease depends not only on working conditions, but also on work experience, and, secondly, the development of the main part of occupational diseases with a high degree of probability falls on the work experience group close to the interval from 10 to 14 years, which allows using 10 years of work experience in as a starting point in assessing the probability of disability.

Based on this, in order to analyze the relationship between the values ​​of age and length of service in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions and the level of individual occupational risk, the indicator of the employee's age - B and the indicator of the employee's work experience in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions - C were introduced, and five age and seniority groups of workers were formed (Table 10).

The values ​​of the introduced indicators in accordance with the employee's belonging to a certain age or seniority group were set according to Table. eleven.

For the values ​​of indicators for assessing the age and length of service of an individual specific employee, the following inequality (6) must be satisfied:

The individual occupational risk (IPR) of an employee should be understood as the probability of injury (loss) of health or death associated with the performance by the employee of duties under an employment contract (contract), depending on the working conditions at his workplace and the state of health of the employee.

In accordance with the definition of IPR, we accept that the individual professional risk of an employee depends on the following parameters (risk factors):

• working conditions , available at the workplace of the employee in the process of performing his professional activities (this parameter is characterized by the IUT indicator, that is, an integral assessment of working conditions);
• employee health status (this parameter is characterized by the indicator of the state of health Zd, determined by the results of medical examinations of the employee; the values ​​​​of the indicator are given in Table 12);
• employee age (this parameter is characterized by the employee's age indicator B; the values ​​​​of the indicator are given in Table 11);
• work experience of an employee in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions (this parameter is characterized by the worker's length of service).

Of course, occupational morbidity and occupational injuries are the main indicators of occupational risk. However, under the conditions modern Russia their levels are unjustifiably low and continue to decline despite the high proportion of jobs with poor working conditions. This required taking into account, when calculating individual and collective occupational risk, not only information about occupational morbidity and occupational injuries, but also indicators of the general health of the employee. for an integral assessment of the health status of an employee, it was proposed, based on the results of periodic examinations, to distribute all employees into five groups of dispensary observation.

This choice is based on a strong medical examination tradition Russian healthcare(Table 12). For a reasonable conclusion on the assignment of an employee to the appropriate medical examination group for health reasons, it is allowed to use materials from additional medical examinations, in-depth and targeted medical examinations, as well as data from the outpatient medical history and the employee’s request for medical help as auxiliary information.

All the parameters of occupational risk listed above can be divided into managed, quasi-managed and unmanaged. Managed parameters include working conditions, quasi-managed - an indicator of the health of the employee and the duration of the employee's stay in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions, unmanaged - the age of the employee.

IN general view can be written that

where IOUT is an integral assessment of working conditions at the employee's workplace;
Z - an indicator of the state of health of the employee;
B - an indicator of the age of the employee;
C - an indicator of the employee's work experience in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions.

It is important in the future to observe in expression (7), when writing in the general form of the employee's IPR, a strict sequence of entering parameters. The first is the parameter that evaluates working conditions, the second is the parameter that characterizes the state of health, the third is the indicator of age assessment and the last is the indicator of seniority.

The given sequence of recording parameters in the IPR allows, firstly, to identify a specific employee in relation to the assessment of working conditions at his workplace, the assessment of the employee’s health status and the assessment of his personal data, and secondly, to unify the IPR recording form and thereby achieve the goal of the subsequent understanding by various users about what information is contained in the given IPR record of the employee.

For example, the IPR of a specific employee in general terms can be set (written) using the following parameters:

Such a record means that the employee has acceptable working conditions at the workplace; refers to a group of people with a compensated course of the disease, rare exacerbations, short-term disability; his age is in the range from 40 to 49 years, the length of service in harmful working conditions is in the range from 11 to 20 years.

To determine the specific value of the individual professional risk of an employee, as a kind of integral indicator that depends on several parameters (factors), we will use a weighted summation of individual parameters. At the same time, the weights (w i) of individual risk factors are determined on the basis of expert assessments. The sum of the weight coefficients must be equal to one.

The significance was determined by an expert, taking into account domestic and world experience, according to which, human health is half formed under the influence of lifestyle, and for a working person, lifestyle is almost completely determined by his work activity.

Then the procedure for determining the IPR is as follows. On the basis of expert assessments, each parameter is assigned a weighting coefficient, while the higher the importance of the parameter in the formation of the IPR, the greater the weight of the parameter (Table 13).

Absolute values ​​of parameter indicators are converted into relative ones. To do this, the values ​​of all indicators are expressed as fractions of the maximum value of the indicator by multiplying the value of the indicator by the corresponding coefficient. The values ​​of the coefficients used to convert parameter indicators from absolute values ​​to relative values ​​are given in Table. fourteen.

The summation of the weighted values ​​of all parameters reduced to relative values ​​is performed:

In this case, SUMminimum \u003d w 1 * (1/15) * IO + w 2 * (1/5) * W + w 3 * (1/5)

The summation of the weighted values ​​of all parameters reduced to relative values ​​is performed:

In this case, SUMminimum \u003d w 1 * (1/15) * IO + w 2 * (1/5) * W + w 3 * (1/5) * B + w 4 * (1/5) * C \u003d
0.4 * (1/15) * 1+ 0.3 * (1/5) * 1+ 0.2 * (1/5) * 1 + 0.1 * (1/5) * 1 = 0, 15 and SUMmax = 1.

B + w 4 * (1/5) * C = 0.4 * (1/15) * 1+ 0.3 * (1/5) * 1+ 0.2 * (1/5) * 1+ 0 ,1 * (1/5) * 1 = 0.15,
and SUMmax = 1.

The individual occupational risk (IPR) of an employee, as a single-digit value, depending on the working conditions and the health status of the employee, is calculated by multiplying the sum of the weighted values ​​of the parameters (working conditions, work experience of the employee in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions, the age of the employee, the health status of the employee ), reduced to relative values, on injury and morbidity rates in the workplace (10):

where Кс is a coefficient taking into account the number of injuries at the workplace over the past year;
Kt is a coefficient that takes into account the severity of the consequences of injury to workers at the workplace over the past year. The value of the Kt coefficient is determined by the largest value among all the Kt coefficients at a given workplace.

In table. 15 shows the values ​​of the coefficients of the number of cases (Kc) and the severity of injuries (Kt).

(1/5) * B + w 4 * (1/5) * C \u003d 0.4 * (1/15) * 1 + 0.3 * (1/5) * 1 + 0.2 * (1/ 5) * 1 + 0.1 * (1/5) * 1 = 0.15,
and SUMmax = 1.

The individual occupational risk (IPR) of an employee, as a single-digit value, depending on the working conditions and the health status of the employee, is calculated by multiplying the sum of the weighted values ​​of the parameters (working conditions, work experience of the employee in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions, the age of the employee, the health status of the employee ), reduced to relative values, on injury and morbidity rates in the workplace (10):

where Кс is a coefficient taking into account the number of injuries at the workplace over the past year;
Kt is a coefficient that takes into account the severity of the consequences of injury to workers at the workplace over the past year. The value of the Kt coefficient is determined by the largest value among all the Kt coefficients at a given workplace.

In table. 15 shows the values ​​of the coefficients of the number of cases (Kc) and the severity of injuries (Kt).

The incidence rate (Pz) at this workplace for the past year is determined in accordance with Table. 16.

The results of parametric analysis of the obtained calculated values ​​of IPR are given in Table. 17. The results of calculations for the interval 0.91 - 1.0 are rather theoretically possible results that do not take place in real practice, since all parameters included in the general IPR formula should in this case have simultaneously high extreme "heavy" values ​​according to the conditions work, health, age and length of service, which is unlikely in the actual professional activity of workers.

This is confirmed by the one shown in Fig. 1 histogram of the distribution of the number of hits of individual occupational risk values ​​in a given interval, the analysis of which allows us to conclude that the distribution of IPR, as a probabilistic value, can be described by a normal law.

In table. 18 according to the results of the analysis, an interval scale of individual risk is given.

Approbation of the algorithm for calculating individual occupational risk, depending on the working conditions at the workplace and the health status of the employee, was carried out on the basis of an analysis of the results of certification of the workplace of an electrician for the repair of electrical equipment.

The initial data obtained from the results of certification of the workplace of an electrician for the repair of electrical equipment:

• the results of a general hygienic assessment of working conditions at the workplace of an electrician for the repair of electrical equipment, taken from line 030 of the Certification Card (the general class of working conditions at the workplace is 3.3; the number of factors with class 3.2 is two, with class 3.3 - one);
• the class of working conditions for injury prevention, taken from line 030 of the Attestation Card, is set as optimal;
• the employee is provided with personal protective equipment (Table 19).

Over the past year, there were two cases of injury at the workplace of an electrician for the repair of electrical equipment. In both cases, temporary disability did not exceed one month. No cases of occupational diseases were registered at the workplace during the past year. The dispensary observation group established by the electrician based on the results of a periodic medical examination refers to D-III-A.

The age of the employee is 45 years, the work experience in harmful working conditions is 10 years.
The determination of the individual professional risk of an electrician for the repair of electrical equipment in accordance with the developed algorithm for calculating the IPR will be divided into several stages.

At the first stage, an integral assessment of the working conditions of an electrician is calculated based on the indicator of the harmfulness of working conditions at the worker's workplace - PV, the indicator of the protection of the worker with personal protective equipment - OZ and the indicator of the risk of injury to the worker - RT.

To calculate the value of the indicator of harmfulness of the working conditions of an electrician at his workplace, the following sequence of actions is performed.

1. The total hazard at the workplace is determined in accordance with the scoring of the classes of working conditions established based on the results of workplace certification for production factors:

2. Production factors available at the workplace are conditionally reduced to an acceptable class. In this case, each production factor will receive a score of two, and the total score in the workplace for seven production factors will be:

3. An indicator of the harmfulness of the working conditions of an employee at his workplace is calculated, taking into account the number of factors according to the formula:

The indicator of the protection of workers with personal protective equipment - OZ and the injury risk indicator RT can be determined based on the assessment of these indicators.

The assessment of the injury risk indicator corresponds to the assessment of the injury safety of the workplace, then RT = 1, since the class of working conditions for injury safety, taken from line 030 of the Certification Card for an electrician for the repair of electrical equipment, is set as optimal, that is, equal to one.

The assessment of the security index (OS) corresponds to the assessment of the provision of employees with PPE and is equal to 1, since the employee is provided with personal protective equipment.

Taking into account the assessment of the risk of injury to the worker (RT) and the assessment of the protection of personal protective equipment (PPE; see Table 9), the value of the rank P = 1 for the workplace is determined in accordance with the combination of the values ​​of the indicators RT = 1 and PZ = 1, established for this workplace.

When PV >= 1, the integral assessment of working conditions at the workplace, taking into account the impact of production factors with different hazard classes, assessing the risk of injury and assessing the protection of the worker with personal protective equipment is determined depending on the value of the PV indicator according to the formula:

(15)

At the second stage, the indicator of the health status of the employee (Z) is determined, which is set in accordance with the employee's belonging to a certain group of dispensary observation. The dispensary observation group established by the electrician on the basis of the results of a periodic medical examination refers to D-3.

Therefore, the employee's health indicator is equal to three, that is, Zd = 3.

At the third stage, depending on the age of the employee and his length of service, the indicator of the employee's age - B and the indicator of the employee's length of service in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions - C. In accordance with the personal data of the employee by age, we attribute him to the third group and his age index is three, that is, B = 3.

According to the length of service in harmful conditions, we attribute the employee to the first group, and in this case, the indicator C will be equal to one, C = 1.

At the fourth stage, we determine the injury rate (Ft) at a given workplace, which depends on the number of injuries at this workplace and the severity of the consequences of injury to workers according to the formula:

where Kc is the coefficient taking into account the number of injuries at the workplace over the past year, equal to two, since there were two cases of injuries at the workplace of an electrician for the repair of electrical equipment;
Kt - the coefficient taking into account the severity of the consequences of injury to workers at the workplace over the past year, is equal to one, since temporary disability did not exceed one month.

Then the PT will be:

At the fifth stage, the incidence rate (Pz) at the workplace for the past year is determined. In accordance with the table. 3.5 morbidity rate Pz = 1, since no cases of occupational diseases were registered at the workplace over the past year.

Taking into account the five stages considered, the individual professional risk of an electrician for the repair of electrical equipment can be written in general terms as follows:

This corresponds to a very high risk.

The considered procedure for calculating individual occupational risk depending on the working conditions and health status of an employee using the example of an electrician for the repair of electrical equipment for calculating IPR allows us to determine the following modules of the algorithm.

Module for input and formation of initial data. This module collects and stores, subject to confidentiality, the employee's personal data (age, length of service in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions). Hygienic assessments of working conditions are entered and stored based on the results of attestation of the workplace, assessment of the risk of injury and the protection of the employee with personal protective equipment at the workplace. Data are generated on cases of injuries at the workplace over the past year and the severity of their consequences, as well as data on cases of occupational diseases at the studied workplace over the past year.

Module for calculating the integral assessment of working conditions. In this module, according to the relevant initial data, the value of IOTS is determined and stored.

Module for calculating the indicator of the health status of an employee Z.

The module for calculating the indicator of the employee's age . IN.

The module for calculating the indicator of seniority an employee in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions. This module defines and stores the indicator - FROM.

Injury rate calculation module . This module defines and stores the indicator - Fri.

Module for calculating the indicator of occupational morbidity . This module defines and stores the indicator - Pz.

Module for calculating individual occupational risk . In this module, the IPR expression is defined and stored both in general form and as a single-digit value.

The modular structure of the algorithm ensures the application automated systems for processing and analyzing the results of calculating the IPR, allows, if necessary, building up new additional modules, autonomously upgrading a separate module or modules, which generally allows you to quickly change the algorithm in order to flexibly adapt it to new conditions and requirements.

The integral indicator of the level of professional risk in an organization (URRO) is a mathematical and statistical value obtained on the basis of processing indicators of individual professional risk of employees of an organization grouped by profession or by structural divisions.

The integral indicator of the level of occupational risk in an organization based on occupational groups (UPROgr) is calculated as the ratio of the sum of the weighted group averages of the IRP of employees of all professional groups in the analyzed organization to the sum of the weights of the group averages of IRP of employees of all professional groups.

The calculation algorithm contains several stages.

1. The sum of the values ​​of individual occupational risks of employees of each occupational group (GR) is determined:
(20)

IPR i - individual professional risk of the i-th worker in this professional group.

2. The group average value of the individual occupational risk of workers in an occupational group (OC) is calculated:

where GR is the sum of the values ​​of individual occupational risks of employees of this occupational group, calculated according to formula (1);
m is the number of workers in a given occupational group.

3. The sum of the squared deviations of the values ​​of the individual occupational risk of workers in each occupational group from the average value of the individual occupational risk of workers in the occupational group (GC) is calculated:

(22)

where IPR i- individual occupational risk of the i-th worker in this occupational group;

4. The weight of the group average value of IPR for each professional group (GV) is determined:

where m is the number of workers in a given occupational group;
GK - the sum of the squared deviations of the values ​​of the individual occupational risk of workers in a given occupational group from the group average value of the individual occupational risk of workers in this occupational group, calculated by formula (3).

5. The weighted group average value of the individual occupational risk of the occupational group (G) is calculated:

where GV is the weight of the group average value of IPR for a given professional group, calculated according to the formula (4);
HS - group average value of individual occupational risk of workers of this occupational group, calculated by formula (2);

6. The sum of the weighted group averages of the IPR of all professional groups (SG) is calculated:

(25)

where n is the number of professional groups in the organization;
Г j - weighted group average value of the individual professional risk of the professional group, calculated by the formula (5).
where IPR i is the individual professional risk of the i-th worker in this professional group;
m is the number of workers in a given occupational group;
HS - group average value of individual occupational risk of workers of this occupational group, calculated by formula (21).

7. The sum of the weights of the group average values ​​of the individual occupational risk of all occupational groups (OGR) is calculated:

where SG is the sum of the weighted group averages of the IPR of all professional groups, found by the formula (25);
SGV - the sum of the weights of the group average values ​​of IPR of all professional groups, calculated by formula (26).

Similarly, the value of UPRO is calculated based on structural divisions organizations.

Thus, as a result of the studies performed, a draft Methodology for calculating individual occupational risk and the level of occupational risk in an organization was developed, depending on working conditions and the state of health of an employee.

The algorithm for calculating individual occupational risk is based on the use of an integral assessment of working conditions at the workplace, the general health of the employee, his age and length of service in harmful and/or dangerous working conditions, as well as the number of employees registered in the past year at the workplace this employee and similar workplaces cases of occupational diseases and injuries, taking into account their severity. The calculation of the value of the level of occupational risk in the organization is based on the analysis of indicators of individual occupational risk of employees and group risk indicators in professional groups and structural divisions.

The scientific novelty of the methods is determined by the fact that they are the first to propose a method for a single-number assessment of a posteriori individual occupational risk, including indicators of working conditions, health status, age and length of service of an employee in harmful and / or dangerous working conditions, as well as occupational morbidity and injury.

The methods have been tested on the example of two structural divisions of OAO Salavatsteklo. It was revealed that about 60% of the workers of the studied shops should be classified as a group of high occupational risk (Fig. 2), and that the same level of occupational risk is typical for the organization as a whole. And this is especially indicative given that in the past year not a single case of occupational disease and industrial injury was registered at the enterprise (Table 20).

The developed methods can be used to solve problems in the system of compulsory social insurance against industrial accidents, as well as to assess the individual occupational risk of employees and the level of occupational risk in an organization in various types economic activity with the subsequent development of reasonable measures aimed at reducing occupational risk.

Literature:

1. Analysis of the materials of attestation of workplaces by comparing the actual data on working conditions and the fixed values ​​of additional payments and compensations in the organizations of Energoatom Concern OJSC (quick analysis). Research report (interim). Closed Joint-Stock Company"Klin Institute of Safety and Working Conditions" OLS-set ". Ruk. Kosyrev O.A.; performer: Kosyrev O.A., Moskvichev A.V., Vikhrov S.V., Ivanov V.V. [and others] Klin, 2009

2. The latest dictionary of foreign words and expressions. M .: "Modern Writer", 2005. - 976 p.

3. Pashin N.P. Occupational risk management system // "Reference book of labor protection specialist". - 2008, No. 10, p. 5 - 9.

4. Occupational health risk for workers [Text]: Guide / ed. N.F. Izmerova, E.I. Denisov. - M.: "Trovant", 2003. - 448 p.

5. Development of a methodology for an integral assessment of working conditions at the workplace, taking into account the complex impact of production factors with different hazard classes (hygienic assessment of working conditions, assessment of injury safety, assessment of the provision of PPE) based on automated data processing [text]: research report (conclusive) / CJSC “Klin Institute of Safety and Labor Conditions “OLS-set”; hands Kosyrev O.A.; performer: Kosyrev O.A., Vikhrov S.V., Ivanov V.V. [and etc.]. - Klin, 2008. - 102 p. - Bibliography: p. 70.-
№ 01200853627.

6. Development of a methodology for calculating the probability of an employee's disability depending on the state of working conditions at the workplace [text]: research report (conclusive) / State Research Institute of Occupational Medicine RAMS. Ruk. Izmerov; performer: Prokopenko L.V., Simonova N.I., Izmerova N.I., Kosyrev O.A., Vikhrov S.V., Ivanov V.V. [and etc.]. - M, 2008. - 86 p. - Bibliography: p. 58 - 60. - No. 01200853070.

7. Regulations on the collection of personalized data of employees during the certification of workplaces for working conditions. confidentiality. Documentation of procedures and development of standards for organizing and conducting an assessment of working conditions in the workplace to assess occupational risks [text]: research report (conclusive) / CJSC Klin Institute of Safety and Labor Conditions OLS-komplekt; hands Kosyrev O.A.; performer: Kosyrev O.A., Baranov N.I., Vikhrov S.V., Ivanov V.V. [and etc.]. - Klin, 2007. - 35 p. - Bibliography: p. 34. - No. 01200957811.

8. Roik V. Professional risk: problems of analysis and management. "Man and Labor" No. 4, 2003, pp. 1 - 6.

9. Guidelines for the hygienic assessment of factors of the working environment and the labor process. Criteria and classification of working conditions [text]: guide R. 2.2.2006-05 / Federal Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology of Rospotrebnadzor. - M., 2005. - 142 p.

10. Fletcher R., Fletcher S., Wagner E. Clinical epidemiology. Fundamentals of evidence-based medicine. - M.: "MediaSphere", 1998. - 352 p.

11. International code of ethics for occupational health professionals. - Singapore: International commission on occupational health, 1996.

Izmerov N.F., Prokopenko L.V., Simonova N.I., Izmerova N.I., Kuzmina T.P., Tikhonova G.I.,
Denisov E.I., Kosyrev O.A., Vikhrov S.V., Moskvichev A.V., Ivanov V.V., Shchinov M.Yu.

To compare risk and economic benefits, many experts propose to introduce a specific monetary value of a human life. This approach raises objections among a certain circle of people who argue that human life is sacred and financial transactions are unacceptable.

However, in practice, the need for such an assessment inevitably arises precisely for the sake of people's safety. The question is put like this: “How much money should be spent to save human life? According to foreign data, human life is estimated from 650 thousand to 7 million US dollars.

It should be noted that the procedure for determining the risk is very approximate.

There are 4 methodological approaches to risk determination:

engineering, based on mathematical statistics, probabilistic safety analysis, building a hazard tree;

mathematical modeling, based on the construction of models of the impact of harmful factors on humans;

expert– the probability of various events is determined on the basis of a survey of experienced specialists, i.e. experts;

sociological- a survey of all employees at the enterprise and the most thorough questioning of those employed in this labor process.

These methods reflect different aspects of professional risks, so they must be used in combination.

10.3. Acceptable (acceptable) risk

In 1990, the first World Congress on Business Safety was held in Cologne (Germany) under the motto "Life in Safety". Experts from different countries in their reports on security issues used the concept of "risk", based on the wording: "Risk - the frequency of occurrence of hazards", i.e. risk - quantitative assessment of danger. Hazards are phenomena that cause undesirable consequences.

In accordance with the law "On technical regulation", the federal law RF No. 184-FZ, dated December 21, 2002 (Article 2). Risk is the probability of causing harm to the life or health of citizens, taking into account the severity of this harm.

Hazards are characterized by such signs as destruction, breakdowns of machines, mechanisms, equipment, buildings, structures. Hazards pose a threat to human life and health. Danger can be represented as an event, using the formulation of the "Probability Theory".

An event (or “chance event”) is any fact that, as a result of “experience”, may or may not occur.

The probability of an event is a numerical measure of the degree of objective possibility of this event.

The probability of an event A is denoted by P(A), where A is an event, P is the probability of an event.

Events are certain and impossible. Certain event U, which will definitely happen Р(U) = 1.

Impossible event V that cannot happen Р(V) = 0.

The probability of any event occurring is 0 < P(A) < 1, it is determined by the formula P(A) = m/n, where n is the total number of cases, m is the number of cases favorable to event A.

Risk - R at event A, R (A) \u003d 0 - absolute safety.

Absolute security is not always achievable economically.

Spheres of manifestation of dangers: household, sports, road transport, industrial, military, etc.

For example, let's determine the risk (probability) of a fatal accident at work, based on the fact that 75 million people are employed in the production sector in Russia, 8 thousand people died:

R cm \u003d n / N \u003d 0.8 10 4 / 10 7 \u003d 1.1 10 -4,

where n is the number of people who died as a result of industrial injuries and accidents; N is the number of employees in production.

Let us determine the risk (probability) of death of a resident of Russia, based on what died at work, in traffic accidents, died from domestic injuries, died in a fire, poisoned, etc. n = 350 thousand people, the number of Russian citizens of all ages N = 150 million people:

R cm \u003d 35 10 4 / 15 10 7 \u003d 2.3 10 -3.

As an example, consider foreign data characterizing individual risk. The probabilistic assessment of individual risk is calculated on the basis of statistical data relating to the entire population of the United States of America (US statistical compendium, table 10.2).

Table 10.2

Individual risk of fatal outcome per year due to various causes (according to the USA)

Risk analysis consists of risk assessment, risk management and risk information. Risk assessment includes hazard identification, exposure assessment and risk characterization.

Risk management - making decisions and actions aimed at ensuring the safety and health of workers.

Information about the risk is communicated to employers, employees and other interested parties in compliance with the conditions and ethical standards established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.

Stages of occupational risk assessment

Stage 1 - hygienic assessment and establishment of a class of working conditions according to the criteria R2.2.2006-05.05, appendix 3

Stage 2 - analysis of regulatory and technical documentation for equipment, technological processes, materials, etc.,

analysis of literature on working conditions of this professional group; Attraction of available materials: clinical-physiological, laboratory, experimental, etc. accounting of data from examinations, studies, investigations.

According to these data, the risk is assessed in category 1B (estimated).

Stage 3 - analysis of occupational morbidity.

Stage 4 - analysis of the results of periodic medical examinations.

Stage 5 - analysis of morbidity with temporary disability, disability, mortality, etc.

Stage 6 - verification of the class of working conditions determined at stage 1, taking into account the data obtained at stages 2-5

Stage 7 - calculation of the index of occupational diseases.

Stage 8 - ranking the data obtained by disability, mortality, and other indicators.

Stage 9 - calculations of relative risk RR;

Step 10 - risk assessment and determination of risk evidence category.

The initial data for determining "professional risk" are the results of:

state sanitary and epidemiological supervision;

sanitary and epidemiological assessment of production equipment and industrial products;

Occupational risk assessment is carried out for individual professional groups (workers of workshops, sections, etc. with similar working conditions), its result is a group risk assessment.

When conducting an individual assessment of occupational risk (taking into account gender, age, length of service, individual risk factors, bad habits, etc.), the results obtained should be considered personal medical data protected by law (Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Calculations of the maximum accumulated seasonal, rotational and other exposures (loads), incl. and allowable length of service, should be considered as indicative for the assessment of collective risk.

When conducting an occupational risk assessment, measures should be taken to protect confidential information, the disclosure of which could harm the employer (in the group risk assessment) or the employee (in the individual risk assessment).

The criteria for harmless working conditions is the preservation of:

1. health,

   functional abilities of the body

   life expectancy,

   health of future generations.

The quality of life and health is ensured by a set of indicators.

Acute and chronic occupational diseases (poisoning) possible loss of life during acute exposure (for example, death from heat stroke, sudden death as a result of stressful physical and neuro-emotional overload), loss of functions (for example, smell when exposed to irritants, hearing acuity when exposed to noise), termination of pregnancy in a dangerous incident, the birth of a child with congenital malformations when parents work with reproductive toxicants, etc.

When assessing the PR, occupational diseases, infectious diseases, injuries are subject to mandatory accounting.

The following criteria are used to evaluate PR:

hygienic (preliminary) according to R 2.2.2006-05;

medical and biological indicators of workers' health, incl. reproductive and offspring health;

the severity of health disorders of workers;

the degree of association of health disorders with work on epidemiological data.

Table 10.3

Classes of working conditions, occupational risk categories Timing of preventive measures

A reliable quantitative assessment of PR is legitimate if there are materials from sanitary and epidemiological studies, conclusions, data from epidemiological studies, clinical and physiological, clinical laboratory studies, as well as data from instrumental measurements of working environment factors assessed according to hygienic criteria R 2.2.2006–05.

Limited observations in humans or, in the absence of such data, data from experimental studies in laboratory animals may be used as a guideline.

Based on the complex of these data, the weight of the evidence is determined.

The results of the assessment of PR are divided into the following categories of evidence of risk:

category 1A(proven occupational risk) - based on the results of a hygienic assessment of working conditions according to the criteria of the guide R 2.2.2006–05, materials from periodic medical examinations, physiological, laboratory and experimental studies, as well as epidemiological data;

category 1B (estimated occupational risk) – based on the results of a hygienic assessment of working conditions according to the criteria of the guide R 2.2.2006-05, supplemented by individual clinical and physiological, laboratory, experimental data (including literature data);

When establishing the risk based on the results of a hygienic assessment of working conditions, it is necessary to analyze occupational morbidity, data from periodic medical examinations, disability, non-survival, mortality and other socially significant indicators of the health of workers, including reproductive health, as well as the health of their offspring according to specially developed programs .

Hello! Today, the question of the need to create an occupational risk management system in an enterprise is often raised, while it is not clear what regulatory documents should be used and how to set up such a system in your enterprise. Consult, please.

Expert answer:

Good afternoon!

Indeed, today there are several normative documents on assessment of professional risks. Let's look at the main requirements of these documents for the procedure and methodology for risk assessment:

1. Guide to Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems. ILO-OSH-2001/ILO-OSH-2001, which established the requirement to involve employees in the process of identifying hazards and assessing risks at the workplace (clause 3.10.2.2), as well as to continuously improve the procedure for identifying and assessing hazards and risks (clause 3.16.1.b).

2. SSBT. GOST R 54934-2012/OHSAS 18001:2007. Occupational safety and health management systems. There is also a requirement for employee involvement (clause 4.4.3.2). The document defines the areas that the risk assessment procedure should take into account: standard and atypical operations; impact on contractors and visitors; human behavior, changes, etc. (clause 4.3.1). In terms of methodology, the document states that risk assessment should be proactive.

3. GOST R ISO 31000-2010. Risk management, which defined general principles risk management.

4. GOST R 51901.23-2012. Risk management. Risk register. Guidance on the risk assessment of hazardous events for inclusion in the risk register. The paper provides an example of a bow tie risk assessment method: an approach based on the analysis of hazardous event scenarios. The performance of a hazard risk assessment involves two steps: a basic (qualitative) screening assessment and an additional detailed (eg, quantitative) risk analysis. The appendices provide criteria for assessing the likelihood, consequences, etc.

5. GOST R 51897-2011 / Guide ISO 73:2009. Risk management. Terms and Definitions. The standard was introduced to replace GOST R 51897-2002, contains terms and definitions. The main differences: in GOST 2002, "risk" is a combination of the probability of an event and its consequences; in the current Standard, “risk” is a consequence of the influence of uncertainty on the achievement of goals (clause 1.1). The term "risk owner" appears - a person or organization that has the authority and responsibility for risk management (clause 3.5.1.5).

6. GOST R ISO/IEC 31010 – 2011. Risk management. Risk assessment methods. The standard contains recommendations on the selection and application of risk assessment methods: Appendix A provides short description risk assessment methods, in Appendix B - a description of risk assessment methods.

The difficulty for the employer lies in the fact that the above documents do not allow to unambiguously determine by what methodology to conduct risk assessment procedures at the enterprise and this issue is at the mercy of the employer.

If we turn to the experience of most large international companies in Russia, which are actively implementing international standards, including OHSAS 18001 Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems. Requirements”, which, in particular, determines the existence of a risk assessment procedure at the enterprise, it is possible to single out main steps for organizing risk assessment work:

1. Conducting behavioral audits to assess the level of safety culture.

2. Making a decision on the readiness of the enterprise for the transition to risk management.

3. Development of Regulations on hazard identification, risk assessment and management.

4. Analysis of hazardous/harmful production factors.

5. Drawing up a risk matrix.

6. Preparation of individual occupational risk maps for each workplace.

7. Training and involvement of employees in risk assessment processes.

8. Continuous risk assessment at every workplace.

9. Implementation of corrective measures.

10. Monitoring and control of the occupational risk management system.

It should be noted that the above processes are cyclical and based on the results of control measures, a list of corrective and preventive measures is developed to improve technological processes and reducing the level of unacceptable risk, taking into account possible financial costs.

The fundamental point in the application of the professional risk management system in enterprise management is a clear understanding of its purpose. It's really very effective tool for the transition of labor protection in Russia to a qualitatively new level of safety culture.