What documents should be used when assessing professional risks? Study of the stages of the methodology for determining professional risk. Assessment of professional risk using the questionnaire method; example of an organization.

A competent assessment of occupational risks allows the employer to significantly improve working conditions for personnel and reduce labor safety costs. Let's talk about the algorithm for calculating profit margins.

Read in the article:

Assessing occupational risks at an enterprise: goals

During inspections, the State Tax Inspectorate has already begun to fine enterprises for failing to assess profrisks, although there is no approved methodology for conducting it yet. The fine for legal entities ranges from 50,000 to 80,000 rubles. This position of the GIT is justified: Art. 212 of the Labor Code requires the creation of an OSMS at the enterprise, including professional risk management.

A correctly conducted assessment of professional risks allows you to identify “weak” points in labor protection at a particular enterprise. Planning security measures will be much more effective if you focus on the results of such an analysis. Determining priorities will help to properly direct the employer’s resources (financial, legal, etc.) and justify compensation for potential harm to the health of personnel. As a result, the enterprise receives a reduction in labor safety costs, a reduction in the number of occupational diseases, and damage from them.

The assessment of profrisks, carried out systematically, constantly, becomes part of the enterprise management system as a whole. It becomes possible to predict occupational injury rates and labor safety costs. This calculation forms the basis for justifying management decisions and analyzing management effectiveness.

Methodology for assessing professional risks

Since the assessment methodology has not been approved, the employer has the right to use any of the existing ones. Let's list the most famous: Risk assessment code, direct quantitative methods (British standard BS-8800), method of constructing a Risk Assessment Graph, Risk score, calculation according to the DSTU OHSAS 180001 - 2007 standard, indirect method based on ranking the level of requirements (IVR index), etc. .d. One of the simplest and most effective is the Fine–Kinney method. You can carry out the procedure yourself or use the services of a third-party expert organization.

Step-by-step algorithm

We suggest you use the following assessment scheme.

To compare risk and economic benefits, many experts propose introducing a specific monetary value of 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 human safety. The question is posed like this: “How much money must be spent to save a human life?” According to foreign data, human life is estimated at between 650 thousand and 7 million US dollars.

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

There are 4 methodological approaches to determining risk:

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

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

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

sociological– a survey of all workers at the enterprise and the most thorough questioning of those involved in this labor process.

The listed 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 Safety at Work was held in Cologne (Germany), under the motto “Living Safely.” Experts from different countries, in their reports on safety issues, used the concept of “risk” based on the formulation: “Risk is 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”, Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 184-FZ, dated December 21, 2002 (Article 2). Risk is the likelihood 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, breakdown of machines, mechanisms, equipment, buildings, and structures. Hazards pose a threat to human life and health. Danger can be represented as an event using the formulation of the “Theory of Probability”.

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

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

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

Events can be reliable or impossible. A reliable event U that will definitely happen P(U) = 1.

Impossible event V that cannot happen P(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 for event A, R(A) = 0 – absolute safety.

Absolute safety is not always achievable and economically feasible.

Areas of danger: 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, and 8 thousand people died:

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

where n is the number of people killed as a result of industrial injuries and accidents; N – number of workers in production.

Let’s determine the risk (probability) of death of a Russian resident based on the fact that they died at work, in road accidents, died from domestic injuries, died in a fire, were poisoned, etc. n = 350 thousand people, the number of Russian residents of all ages N = 150 million people:

R cm = 35 · 10 4 /15 · 10 7 = 2.3 · 10 -3.

As an example, consider foreign data characterizing individual risk. The probabilistic assessment of individual risk was calculated based on 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)

Name
Automobile transport

Fire and burn
Drowning
Poisoning
Firearms
Machine equipment
Water transport
Air Transport
Falling objects
Electricity
Railway

All others
General risk
Nuclear energy (per 100 reactors)

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 criteria P2.2.2006-05.05, 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; Involvement of available materials: clinical-physiological, laboratory, experimental, etc. accounting of data from examinations, studies, investigations.

Based on these data, the risk is assessed in category 1B (presumed).

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 occupational disease index.

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

Stage 9 – calculations of relative risk values RR;

Stage 10 – risk assessment and determination of the category of evidence of risk.

The initial data for determining “occupational risk” are the results:

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, experience, 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 maximum accumulated seasonal, rotational and other exposures (loads), incl. and acceptable length of service should be considered as indicative for assessing 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 a group risk assessment) or the employee (in an individual risk assessment).

The criteria for safe working conditions are the preservation of:

health,
functional abilities of the body,
upcoming 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 due to acute exposure (for example, death due to heat stroke, sudden death as a result of stressful physical and neuro-emotional overload), loss of functions (for example, sense of smell due to exposure to irritating substances, hearing acuity due to exposure to noise), termination of pregnancy due to a dangerous incident, the birth of a child with congenital malformations when parents work with reproductive toxicants, etc.

When assessing occupational safety, occupational diseases, infectious diseases, and injuries are subject to mandatory recording.

To evaluate PR, the following criteria are used:

hygienic (preliminary) according to R 2.2.2006-05;

medical and biological indicators of workers’ health, incl.

reproductive and health of offspring;

severity of employee health problems;

the degree of connection between health disorders and work according to epidemiological data.

Table 10.3

Classes of working conditions, categories of professional risk, timing of preventive measures		Class of working conditions***
Urgency of risk reduction measures	Optimal-1	No risk
No measures required	Acceptable-2	Negligible (tolerable) risk
No measures required, but vulnerable people require additional protection*	Harmful-3.1	Low (moderate) risk
Risk mitigation measures required	Harmful-3.2	Medium (significant) risk
Requires risk mitigation measures in a timely manner	Harmful-3.3	High (intolerable) risk
Urgent risk reduction measures required	Harmful-3.4	Very high (intolerable) risk
Work cannot be started or continued until the risk has been reduced.	Dangerous (extreme)	Extremely high risk and risk to life inherent in this profession
Work must be carried out only in accordance with special regulations** Vulnerable groups of workers include minors, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and disabled people (Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Departmental, industry or professional work regulations with monitoring of the functional state of the employee’s body before or during the shift. **Class of working conditions in accordance with the categories of Appendix 3.

Reliable quantitative assessment of PR is legitimate in the presence of materials from sanitary-epidemiological studies, conclusions, data from epidemiological studies, clinical-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 observations, data from experimental studies in laboratory animals may be used as a guide.

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

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

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

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

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

21.01.2018 15:19:00

Unfavorable working conditions, industrial 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 industrial accidents and occupational diseases” is the industry principle of the insurance tariff underlying it, which leads to leveling out differences in working conditions in different industry organizations .

There is a single insurance tariff for all organizations in the industry, which does not encourage employers to improve working conditions in the workplace. In addition, the value of the insurance tariff is based on the total costs in the industry made for payments for health damage due to occupational diseases and industrial accidents in the past year, while it is generally accepted that the actual level of occupational diseases and occupational injuries in the country is unreasonably low and does not reflect the real likelihood of damage to an employee’s health during the work process. According to many experts, it is necessary to transition from the current model of compulsory social insurance to a more realistic concept of insurance tariffs, based on the principle of taking into account the individual professional risk of the organization's employees.

To date, the country has mainly developed the theoretical aspects of occupational risk assessment, its legal framework, principles, methodological approaches, criteria and indicators. At the same time, a number of problems in the practical application of the theory of assessment and management of professional risk remain unresolved, and, first of all, in Russia today there is no single unified methodology for assessing professional risk.

As is known, occupational risk is closely related to the characteristics of working conditions and the labor process (as the impact of the technogenic system on humans), the biological state of a person and his health and protection from risks. Therefore, to quantify the individual occupational risk of a worker, 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 personal protective equipment (hereinafter referred to as PPE), as well as quantitative methods for assessing the health status of workers.

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

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

Until now, 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 employee’s health status.

The work was carried out on the basis of State contracts dated October 6, 2009, concluded between the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation (FSS RF) and the Institution of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences Research Institute of Occupational Medicine (Research Institute of MT RAMS): No. 273 “development of a Methodology for calculating individual occupational risk depending on the working conditions and health status of the employee" and No. 274 "Development of a Methodology for calculating the integral indicator of the level of occupational risk in an organization."
Assessment of the state of working conditions at workplaces in organizations of the Russian Federation is carried out within the framework of the mandatory procedure for certification of workplaces, regulated by the Procedure for certification of workplaces according to working conditions approved. by order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia dated August 31, 2007 No. 569 ( The Procedure for certification of workplaces based on working conditions is currently in effect, approved. By Order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia dated April 26, 2011 No. 342n, - approx. ed.).

During the hygienic assessment of working conditions, the degree of possible harm to the employee’s health is determined by comparing the measured and assessed levels of harmful production factors with hygienic standards (MPC, MPL). Depending on the magnitude of the deviation of the measured or assessed levels from the standards based on hygienic criteria, a class of hazards and dangers of exposure of workers to several production factors is established; the general class of working conditions in the workplace is established by:

according to the highest class and degree of harmfulness;
in the case of a combined action of 3 or more factors belonging to class 3.1, the overall assessment of working conditions corresponds to class 3.2;
when 2 or more factors of classes 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 are combined, working conditions are assessed accordingly one degree higher.

As the experience of certifying workplaces for working conditions shows, in different workplaces, in general, there may be a different combination of production factors with a different combination of hazard and (or) danger classes established for each of them. However, when establishing the general class of working conditions in 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 operating factors with the various classes of conditions established labor.

It is quite obvious that with this method, in the overall assessment, the harmfulness of factors that do not have the highest class of harmfulness is not taken into account in any way. Failure to take into account the harmfulness (classes) of the entire set of factors leads in practice to different results for different cases of combination of the quantity and nomenclature of production factors. As a result, the established general class of working conditions does not always fully characterize the total harmfulness of working conditions in the workplace.

This can be indirectly characterized by the fact that the general class of working conditions 3.2 is assigned under the influence of three or more factors belonging to class 3.1, or under 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 different workplaces, the conditions of which are characterized by a different nomenclature and number of combinations of factors that have different combinations of established classes of hazards and hazards.

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

It is quite obvious that when reforming the compulsory social insurance system 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 workers' working conditions within the framework of a unified system that takes into account the total harmfulness of all production factors operating in the workplace, including the risk of injury and worker PPE protection.

The presence of a system for 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. Quantitative assessment of the degree of risk of damage to the health of workers from the action of harmful and dangerous factors in the working environment and workload based on the likelihood of health disorders, taking into account their severity, serves as the basis for making management decisions to limit risk and optimize working conditions for workers.

The authors propose that the assessment of the total harmfulness and danger of working conditions in the workplace under the complex influence of various production factors should be carried out on the basis of the developed integral assessment of working conditions. In accordance with the proposed method, weighing the classes of working conditions determined during the certification of workplaces is performed by assigning them points depending on the possible impact of working environment factors on the employee’s body, characterized by the occupational disease index - IP (Guide 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 its dangerous and/or harmful effect on the body becomes.

The integrated assessment of working conditions also takes into account the risk of injury and the protection of workers with personal protective equipment. Weighing the magnitude of the risk and the 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 harmful working conditions in the workplace - characterizes the total harmfulness of working conditions in the workplace. Symbol of the indicator - PV;
Second- indicator of the risk of injury to an employee in the workplace - characterizes the danger of working conditions based on the risk of injury in the workplace. Symbol of the indicator - RT;
Third - indicator of worker protection with personal protective equipment - characterizes the worker’s protection with personal protective equipment - PPE. The symbol for the indicator is OZ.

The hazard index (HI) is determined in points depending on the classes of working conditions established on the basis of measurement and assessment of the levels of factors in the working environment and the labor process during workplace certification. The number of established points “v” corresponding to classes of working conditions is taken in accordance with table. 1.

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

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

where v i is the weight in points that is established 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;
In d - the sum of points for all workplace factors, assuming that their harmfulness during certification is rated as class 2 (acceptable). 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, point.

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 hazardous working conditions in the workplace were considered. The results of the analysis are presented in table. 2, which shows the calculated values of PV obtained for workplaces with hazardous working conditions.

Given in table. 2 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 is 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 PV indicator. Based on the correspondence of the lower limit values of PV to the general assessment of working conditions in the workplace (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 changes in the values of the PV indicator for classes of working conditions in 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 certification of workplaces,
for organizations in different industries, is given in table. 5.

Comparison of the ranges of change in the PV indicator for various classes of working conditions in 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 adopted interval scale to the results of certification of workplaces in organizations related to other types of economic activity.

The indicator of the risk of injury to an employee in the workplace characterizes the danger of working conditions based on an assessment of the risk of injury in the workplace. The symbol for the indicator is RT.

In the work, risk is defined 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 “work activity” is introduced into the definition of risk (GOST 12.0.230-2007), as a result, risk is defined as a combination of the probability of a hazardous occurrence occurring during work activity events, injuries or other damage to human health caused by this event. In the latest edition of OHSAS 18001, “impairment in health” has been replaced by “impairment in health”, which is more consistent with the expert assessment method.

As a result of determining risks using the expert method, a risk value of R = 1 ÷ 25 (5 * 5 matrix) is obtained from each hazard identified in the workplace, based on the application of the risk assessment matrix (RAM).

Although all hazards identified in the workplace are characterized in terms of the threat of injury and the potential for impairment, information about the risk of injury is used to determine the injury risk score. Naturally, the information collected in the Registers about possible consequences for health and safety is preliminary (a priori expert assessment).

Risks in the workplace are identified and assessed based on established risk elements:

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

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

Each severity level has description corresponding situations in increasing severity:

(1) N [N egligible - English insignificant, unimportant, not taken into account, ignored]: no injury, minor damage, exposure can be neglected;
(2) Mi [Mi nor-Englishinsignificant, insignificant, minor, light, frivolous, harmless]: minor damage, minor injuries, impact on health and safety - negligible: the consequences are easily remedied, the costs of eliminating the consequences are not high;
(3) Mo [Mo derate -Englishmoderate, temperate]: impact on health and safety - minor, moderate damage, lost time injury, incident with moderate results: presence of accidental releases, liquidation of consequences is not associated with large costs;
(4) S [S erious -Englishserious, important, significant, significant]: accidents with long-term loss of ability to work, the impact on the health and safety of personnel is significant, an incident with serious consequences: minor destruction, significant impairment of the functions of equipment, liquidation of consequences is associated with significant costs;
(5) C[C critical -English critical, demanding, disapproving]: fatalities, critical impact on the health and safety of personnel, significant destruction, complete disruption of equipment functions, liquidation of consequences requires significant resources.

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

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

For each hazard identified in the workplace, the identified consequence, expressed by the possibility of injury and (or) the possibility of deterioration in health (getting sick), is subject to the operation of determining the magnitude of the risk according to the MPA
(Table 6).

As a rule, the content of the consequences is taken as 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).

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

To determine the probability of the expected damage occurring, available information on the frequency of such damage or events with similar consequences is compared with all probability levels along the horizontal axis - the subjective frequency scale (A, B, C, D, E). The probability level selected is the one that is described better than others and, in the expert's opinion, corresponds to the frequency of the expected event (health or safety consequences with an established degree of severity). As a result, the probability level is determined - the number and designation of the level on a subjective frequency (probability) scale, for example, 2 (B), 3 (C), 4 (D), etc.

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

Example for reading by MOP: the result H4 is located at the intersection of the row corresponding to the severity level (4) S and the column corresponding to the frequency (probability) level * (1) * A. * (4 = 4 * 1). The same result H4 is located 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 MPA 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 MPA, depending on the value, are divided into low (1 - 4), medium ( 5 - 12) and high (15 - 25) risks (see MPA cells highlighted with varying intensities and Table 2.7). Thus, the boundaries between low, medium and high risks are determined expertly, based on the best correspondence of the results of certain risks to possible cases in practice.

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

Thus, the result of assessing the risk of injury consists of indicating 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 indicator depending on the degree of risk is determined in accordance with
from table 8.

The protection of PPE workers in the workplace is considered ensured if, for all high and medium risks included in the Protocol for assessing the protection of PPE workers, the range of PPE actually issued to the employee according to the PPE registration card corresponds to the nomenclature of the list of risks, and ensures the prevention or reduction of hazardous and harmful production factors .

The protection of PPE workers is considered unsecured if the specified compliance of risks and issued PPE is not met in relation to at least one risk. Consequently, the protection indicator shows which risks operating in the workplace are reduced (eliminated) with the help of PPE.

Indicator of worker protection with personal protective equipment - OZ and 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 in accordance with the Procedure for certification of workplaces for working conditions, approved by Order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation of August 31, 2007 No. 569 (Order No. 569 is currently not applied - approx. ed.) ;

The assessment of the protection index (POI) corresponds to the assessment of the provision of workers with PPE in accordance with the Procedure for certification of 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 certifying workplaces based on working conditions, a special assessment of working conditions is carried out, in accordance with Federal Law No. 426-FZ of December 28, 2013 - approx. ed.).

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

The minimum positive (non-zero) theoretical value of the indicator of harmfulness and danger of working conditions PV min at an employee’s workplace is calculated based on the assumption that there is one factor at the workplace that has a class for working conditions equal to 3.1. (4 points), and the remaining factors have a working conditions class 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 under the assumption that all fifteen factors determined by hygienic criteria and having the highest class in terms of working conditions are present at the workplace.

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 work and class 4 working conditions (64 points) for the remaining twelve factors (4):

PV max = (8 * 1 + 16 * 2 + 64 * 12 - 2 * 15) / 2 = 389

(4)

The basis for determining the integral assessment will be the principle of ranking comparable working conditions according to their harmfulness and potential danger to the life and health of the worker under the complex influence of harmful and dangerous production factors.

This contributes to the preparation of a calculation base for further objective calculation of an employee’s individual professional risk and the creation of an overall system for assessing and controlling professional risks. The ranking will be carried out according to quantitative indicators that reflect the varying degrees 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 an employee (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 a workplace is determined in accordance with the combination of the values of the RT and OZ indicators established for a given workplace.

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

Where PV is an indicator of the harmfulness of an employee’s working conditions at his workplace, calculated using formula (1);
R - rank determined in accordance with the values of RT and OZ for a given workplace according to table. 9;
100 - proportionality coefficient;
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 harmful working conditions at the employee’s workplace is zero (PV = 0), then the value of IOUT = 0.02. For practical calculations, the maximum value of the integral assessment of working conditions can be taken as the value IOUT = 15.

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

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

According to the concept of the Plan, during the implementation of activities, the individual professional risk of a particular employee must be determined. For this purpose, working conditions in the workplace and data from medical and biological research must be unambiguously linked to the employee’s personal data, that is, personalized. Personification of working conditions is achieved by collecting personal data of workers, conducting a hygienic assessment of working conditions for their workplaces and establishing a clear connection between them; the collection of personal data of workers must be carried out in compliance with current legislation. Age and work experience in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions, calculated in years, were identified as personal data directly used within the framework of this work to determine the value of the IPR. The importance of taking into account indicators of work experience when assessing individual occupational risk is quite obvious, since with increasing work experience, the burden on workers of all harmful and dangerous factors in the working environment and the labor process increases. In this regard, work experience in hazardous working conditions correlates well with the concept of accumulated total exposure dose.

As for age, the need to take it into account is due to the fact that with increasing 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 against the backdrop of unsatisfactory working conditions. That is why age parameters are always used for the purposes of differential diagnosis of identified changes in health status in order to solve the problem of cause-and-effect relationships between the employee’s health status, his age and work experience.

In the process of research to develop a Methodology for calculating the probability of an employee losing ability to work depending on the state of working conditions in the workplace, it was shown that, firstly, the probability of developing an occupational disease depends not only on working conditions, but also on work experience, and, secondly, secondly, the development of the main part of occupational diseases with a high degree of probability occurs in a group of experience close to the interval from 10 to 14 years, which makes it possible to use 10 years of experience as a starting point when assessing the likelihood of loss of ability to work.

Based on this, to analyze the relationship between the values of age and work experience in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions with 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 length of service groups of workers were formed (Table 10).

The values of the entered indicators in accordance with the employee’s belonging to a certain age or experience group were established according to table. eleven.

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

B >= C

(6)

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

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

working conditions available at the employee’s workplace in the process of performing his professional activities (this parameter is characterized by the IOT indicator, that is, an integral assessment of working conditions);
employee's health status (this parameter is characterized by an indicator of the health status of the worker, determined based on 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 indicator of the employee’s age B; the values of the indicator are given in Table 11);
employee's length of service in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions (this parameter is characterized by the employee’s length of service).

Of course, occupational morbidity and occupational injuries are the main indicators of occupational risk. However, in the conditions of modern Russia, their levels are unjustifiably low and continue to decline, despite the high proportion of jobs with unsatisfactory 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 worker’s general health. For an integral assessment of the employee’s health status, it is proposed to distribute all employees into five groups of dispensary observation based on the results of periodic examinations.

This choice is based on the strong traditions of clinical examination characteristic of Russian healthcare (Table 12). To make a substantiated conclusion about 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 seeking medical care as auxiliary information.

All of the above parameters of professional risk can be divided into controlled, quasi-controlled and uncontrollable. We include working conditions as controllable parameters, the employee’s health indicator and the duration of the employee’s stay in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions as quasi-controllable, and the employee’s age as uncontrollable.

In general terms we can write that

IPR = F * (IOUT, Z, V, S),

(7)

where IOUT is an integral assessment of working conditions at the employee’s workplace;
Z - indicator of the employee’s health status;
B is an indicator of the employee’s age;
C is an indicator of the employee’s length of service in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions.

It is important in the future to observe in expression (7), when writing the employee’s IPR in general form, the strict sequence of entering parameters. The first is the parameter assessing working conditions, the second is the parameter characterizing the state of health, the third is the indicator for assessing age, and the last is the indicator for assessing work experience.

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, assessment of the employee’s health status and assessment of his personal data, and secondly, to unify the form of recording the IPR and thereby achieve the goal of subsequent understanding by various users of what information is contained in the given employee’s IPR record.

For example, the IPR of a specific employee in general form can be specified (recorded) using the following parameters:

IPR (full name of employee) = (IOUT, Z, V, S) = (0.02; 3; 3; 2)

(8)

Such a record means that the employee has acceptable working conditions at the workplace; belongs to the group of people with a compensated course of the disease, rare exacerbations, short-term disabilities; his age ranges from 40 to 49 years, his work experience in hazardous working conditions ranges from 11 to 20 years.

To determine the specific value of an employee’s individual professional risk, as a kind of integral indicator depending on several parameters (factors), we will use a weighted summation of individual parameters. In this case, the weights (wi) of individual risk factors are determined on the basis of expert assessments. The sum of the weighting coefficients must be equal to one.

The significance was determined expertly, 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. Based on expert assessments, each parameter is assigned a weighting coefficient, and the higher the importance of the parameter in the formation of the IPR, the greater the weight the parameter has (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 to relative values are given in Table. 14.

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

In this case, SUMminimum = 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:

SUM = w 1 * (1/15) * IOUT + w 2 * (1/5) * W + w 3 * (1/5) * B + w 4 * (1/5) * C,

(9)

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

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 (IOR) of an employee, as a single-numeric value depending on working conditions and the employee’s health status, is calculated by multiplying the sum of the weighted values of the parameters (working conditions, the employee’s length of service in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions, the employee’s age, the employee’s health status ), reduced to relative values, on indicators of injury and illness in the workplace (10):

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

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

(1/5) * 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.

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

The morbidity rate (II) at a given workplace for the past year is determined in accordance with Table. 16.

The results of the parametric analysis of the obtained calculated values of the IPR are given in Table. 17. The calculation results for the interval 0.91 - 1.0 are rather theoretically possible results that do not occur in real practice, since all parameters included in the general IPR formula must in this case simultaneously have high extreme “heavy” values according to the conditions labor, health, age and length of service, which is unlikely in the actual professional activities of workers.

This is confirmed by the figure 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 Based on the results of the analysis, Figure 18 shows an interval scale of individual risk.

The testing of an algorithm for calculating individual occupational risk depending on working conditions in the workplace and the employee’s health status was carried out based on an analysis of the results of certification of the workplace of an electrician for repairing electrical equipment.

Initial data obtained from the certification of the electrician's workplace for repairing electrical equipment:

the results of a general hygienic assessment of working conditions at the workplace of an electrician for repairing electrical equipment, taken from line 030 of the Certification Card (general class of working conditions in the workplace - 3.3; the number of factors with class 3.2 is two, with class 3.3 - one);
the class of working conditions for injury safety, taken from line 030 of the Certification 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 repairing electrical equipment. In both cases, temporary disability did not exceed one month. There were no cases of occupational diseases reported in the workplace over the past year. The clinical observation group assigned to an electrician based on the results of a periodic medical examination belongs to D-III-A.

The employee's age is 45 years, and his work experience in hazardous working conditions is 10 years.
Determining the individual professional risk of an electrician for repairing 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 employee’s workplace - PV, the indicator of the employee’s protection with personal protective equipment - OZ and the indicator of the risk of injury to the employee - RT.

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

1. The total harmfulness in the workplace is determined in accordance with the scoring of classes of working conditions established based on the results of certification of the workplace 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 point equal to two, and the total sum of points in the workplace for seven production factors will be:

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

The indicator of worker protection with personal protective equipment - OZ and the risk of 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 protection index (POI) corresponds to the assessment of the provision of workers with PPE and is equal to 1, since the worker is provided with personal protective equipment.

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

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

(15)

At the second stage, the indicator of the employee’s health status (H) is determined, which is established in accordance with the employee’s membership in a certain group of dispensary observation. The clinical observation group assigned to an electrician based on the results of a periodic medical examination belongs 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 work experience, the indicator of the employee’s age is determined - B and the indicator of the employee’s work experience in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions - C. In accordance with the personal data of the employee by age, we assign him to the third group and its age indicator is three, that is, B = 3.

Based on work experience in hazardous conditions, we classify the employee as belonging to the first group, and in this case the C indicator will be equal to one, C = 1.

At the fourth stage, we determine the injury rate (PT) at a given workplace, depending on the number of cases of injury at this workplace and the severity of the consequences of injury to workers using the formula:

Fri = Ks * Kt,

(16)

where Kc is a coefficient that takes into account the number of cases of injury in the workplace over the past year, equal to two, since there were two cases of injury at the workplace of an electrician repairing electrical equipment;
Kt - a coefficient that takes into account the severity of the consequences of injury to workers in the workplace over the past year, is equal to one, since the temporary loss of ability to work did not exceed one month.

Then the PT will be:

Fri = Ks * Kt = 2 * 1 = 2

(17)

At the fifth stage, the morbidity rate (II) in the workplace for the past year is determined. In accordance with table. 3.5 morbidity indicator P3 = 1, since no cases of occupational diseases were registered in the workplace over the past year.

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

This corresponds to a very high risk.

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

Module for input and generation of initial data. In this module, the employee’s personal data (age, length of service in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions) is collected and stored, taking into account confidentiality. Hygienic assessments of working conditions are entered and stored based on the results of workplace certification, assessment of the risk of injury and worker protection with personal protective equipment at the workplace. Data are generated on cases of injuries in the workplace over the past year and the severity of their consequences, as well as data on cases of occupational diseases at the workplace under study over the past year.

Module for calculating the integral assessment of working conditions. In this module, the IOT value is determined and stored based on the corresponding source data.

Module for calculating employee health indicators Z.

Module for calculating employee age indicator . IN.

Module for calculating the length of service indicator employee in harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions. This module defines and stores the indicator - WITH.

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

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

Module for calculating individual professional risk . This module defines and stores the IPR expression both in general form and as a single-numeric value.

The modular structure of the algorithm ensures the use of automated systems for processing and analyzing the results of IPR calculations, allows, if necessary, the expansion of new additional modules, and the autonomous modernization of a separate module or modules, which generally allows for prompt changes to the algorithm in order to flexibly adapt it to new conditions and requirements.

The integral indicator of the level of occupational risk in an organization (IPRO) is a mathematical and statistical value obtained by processing indicators of individual occupational 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 professional groups (UPROgr) is calculated as the ratio of the sum of the weighted group average values of the IPR of workers of all professional groups in the analyzed organization to the sum of the weights of the group average IPR values of workers of all professional groups.

The calculation algorithm contains several stages.

1. The sum of the values of individual professional risks of workers of each occupational group (OG) is determined:
(20)

IPR i is the individual professional risk of the i-th employee in a given professional group.

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

GS = GR / m,

(21)

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

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

(22)

Where IPR i- individual professional risk of the i-th employee in a given professional group;

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

GV = (m - 1) / GK

(23)

where m is the number of workers in a given professional group;
GC is the sum of squared deviations of the values of individual professional risk of workers of a given professional group from the group average value of individual professional risk of workers of this professional group, calculated according to formula (3).

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

G = GV * GS,

(24)

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

6. The sum of weighted group average values of the IPR of all professional groups (OG) is calculated:

(25)

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

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

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

The value of UPRO is calculated similarly based on the structural divisions of the organization.

Thus, as a result of the research carried out, 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 employee’s health status.

The algorithm for calculating individual occupational risk is based on the use of an integral assessment of working conditions in the workplace, the general health of the employee, his age and work experience in harmful and/or dangerous working conditions, as well as the number of registered workers at the workplace in the past year and similar workers places of cases of occupational diseases and injuries, taking into account their severity. The calculation of the level of occupational risk in an organization is based on an analysis of individual occupational risk indicators 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 single-number method for assessing a posteriori individual occupational risk, including indicators of working conditions, health status, age and length of service of the employee in harmful and/or dangerous working conditions, as well as occupational morbidity and injury.

The methods were tested on the example of two structural divisions of OJSC Salavatsteklo. It was revealed that about 60% of workers in the studied workshops should be classified as a group of high occupational risk (Fig. 2), and that the same level of occupational risk is characteristic of the organization as a whole. And this is especially significant given that in the past year, not a single case of occupational disease or occupational 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 workers and the level of occupational risk in an organization in various types of economic activities, with the subsequent development of reasonable measures aimed at reducing occupational risk.

Literature:

1. Analysis of workplace certification materials by comparing actual data on working conditions and recorded values of additional payments and compensation in the organizations of Energoatom Concern OJSC (express analysis). Research report (interim). Closed Joint Stock Company "Klin Institute of Safety and Working Conditions "OLS-Komplekt". Hand. Kosyrev O.A.; performed by: Kosyrev O.A., Moskvichev A.V., Vikhrov S.V., Ivanov V.V. [etc.] 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 // “Handbook of Occupational Safety and Health Specialist”. - 2008, No. 10, p. 5 - 9.

4. Occupational risk to workers' health [Text]: Guide / ed. N.F. Izmerova, E.I. Denisova. - M.: “Trovant”, 2003. - 448 p.

5. Development of a methodology for an integral assessment of working conditions in the workplace, taking into account the complex impact of production factors with various hazard classes (hygienic assessment of working conditions, assessment of injury safety, assessment of the provision of personal protective equipment) based on automated data processing [text]: research report (conclusion) / JSC “Klin Institute of Safety and Working Conditions “OLS-Komplekt”; hands Kosyrev O.A.; Performed by: 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 losing his ability to work depending on the state of working conditions in the workplace [text]: research report (conclusion) / State Research Institute of Occupational Medicine of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. Hand. Izmerov; performed by: 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 workers during certification of workplaces based on working conditions. maintaining confidentiality. Documentation of procedures and development of standards for organizing and assessing working conditions at workplaces to assess occupational risks [text]: research report (conclusion) / JSC "Klin Institute of Safety and Working Conditions "OLS-Komplekt"; hands Kosyrev O.A.; performed by: Kosyrev O.A., Baranov N.I., Vikhrov S.V., Ivanov V.V. [and etc.]. - Klin, 2007. - 35 p. - Bibliography: p. 34. - No. 01200957811.

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

9. Guidelines for hygienic assessment of working environment and labor process factors. Criteria and classification of working conditions [text]: manual 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.

Occupational risk– the likelihood of harm to health as a result of exposure to harmful and (or) hazardous production factors when an employee performs duties under an employment contract or in other cases established by the Labor Code and other Federal Laws (Article 209 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Occupational Risk Management– a set of interrelated measures that are elements of the occupational safety and health management system (hereinafter referred to as the OSHMS) and include measures to identify, assess and reduce levels of occupational risks. In essence, this is a mechanism that allows you to ensure safety and improve working conditions at the enterprise.

The level of professional risk characterizes:

probability of occurrence of insured events (frequency for a given professional group of workers over a certain period of time);
types and duration of health damage (loss of ability to work);
a set of compensation payments, medical and rehabilitation services required for a specific professional group of workers.

Requirements for the occupational health and safety risk management system

Let's consider the current requirements for assessing the likelihood of negative events occurring:

1) SOUTH. The class of working conditions is nothing more than the risk of an employee developing an occupational disease. The mechanism for conducting a special assessment is close to the classical method of risk assessment. What is common is the following:

Hazard identification;
Justification, planning and financing of measures to improve working conditions;
Informing employees about working conditions;
Accumulation of statistical data on working conditions;
Including characteristics of working conditions in the employment contract;
Teamwork (committee on SOUT, assessment team when assessing risks).

The main difference between the SOUT and risk assessment is the static nature of the SOUT (the frequency of its implementation is once every 5 years). However, when assessing risks, the results of the assessment system must be taken into account.

2) Checklist No. 31 verifies that the employer has an occupational safety and health management system (OSMS). Contains two items:

The employer has an OSMS Regulation approved by order;
The employer has an OSH Policy.

According to the Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation dated 03/01/2012 No. 181n “On approval of the Standard List of measures annually implemented by the employer to improve conditions and occupational safety and reduce the levels of occupational risks,” this list includes “Carrying out SOUT, assessing the levels of occupational risks.”

Order of the Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation dated August 19, 2016 No. 438n approved the Standard Regulations on OSMS - a regulatory legal act, the mandatory requirements of which are subject to unconditional implementation. According to this document (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), the procedure for managing professional risks is part of the organization's OSMS.

When developing an OSHS regulation, the employer must be guided by the Model OSHS Regulation, the clauses of which regulate the risk assessment procedure:

The employer has a documented procedure for managing professional risks (clause 33);
Availability of a list of identified hazards that pose a threat to the life and health of workers (clause 34);
The presence in the procedure of describing the method (methods) for assessing the level of professional risks associated with identified hazards (clause 37);
The employer has a list of measures to eliminate or reduce levels of occupational risks (clause 39).

OHSMS implies the presence of a procedure for assessing occupational risk and organizing work on occupational safety in accordance with the identified hazards.

In addition, a number of national standards of the Russian Federation regulate the principles and procedure for risk assessment:

GOST R 12.0.010-2009 “SSBT. SUOT. Hazard identification and risk assessment”;
GOST R 51897-2011/ISO Guide 73:2009 “Risk management. Terms and Definitions";
GOST R ISO 31000-2010 “Risk management. Principles and Guidance”;
GOST R ISO/IEC 31010-2011 “Risk management. Risk assessment methods".

Risk assessment procedure

Risk assessment is a structured process that identifies hazards, determines the likelihood of hazardous events occurring, and analyzes the possible consequences to decide whether to treat the risk.

Risk assessment allows you to answer the following basic questions:

what events might happen;
what are the consequences of these events;
what is the probability of their occurrence;
what factors can reduce adverse consequences or the likelihood of hazardous situations;
the level of risk is acceptable or further processing is required.

The assessment of professional risks can be presented as a sequence of the following actions:

Visit of an expert to the enterprise;
Familiarization with workplaces and production processes;
Development of individual checklists for the department (workplace);
Conducting a risk audit;
Preparation of risk identification cards;
Development of an action plan to reduce risks.

Risk assessment methods

Methods for identifying hazards, incl. in technogenic systems, can be divided into direct and indirect.

Direct risk assessment methods based on statistics. Applicable only where such statistics were collected - to the industry as a whole. But even for a large enterprise, the method does not work - just because the trouble has not yet occurred, it does not follow that the risk is minimal.
Indirect risk assessment methods include: audit of workplace organization, employee survey, safety behavior audit And so on.

Using a checklist when assessing risks

For the convenience of risk assessment, it is customary to use checklists. At the same time, the list of hazards defined by the Regulations is not exhaustive - it should not be used as a ready-made checklist.

An illiterate checklist will negate all the work on risk assessment. Often in practice, a questionnaire is sent to the head of the unit with the following items: “Has training been carried out?”, “PPE issued?”, “Is there a risk of injury?”, “Are the rules followed?” and so on. The foreman answers affirmatively to all points and returns the questionnaire back. The specialist who received it is satisfied with the low level of risk. This approach has nothing to do with true risk assessment.

Even if the head of a department is aware of his role in ensuring safe working conditions and has sufficient qualifications, in practice it is impossible for him to assess the real level of rice at his facility. The reason for this is a number of psychological and professional barriers.

Audit Mechanisms

To conduct a competent assessment, an outside person is required - a full-time employee or an expert specially hired for this purpose. His primary tasks:

inspect the workspace, organization of workplaces;
study the tool used;
become familiar with production processes.

It is important to understand that while working “under supervision”, employees will demonstrate ideally safe behavior. Here you should pay attention to the details: a sudden change or stop of work or a prompt search for personal protective equipment when the auditor appears.

However, even an expert without the participation of the organizers of the production process may miss certain options for performing work in the department. It is the survey of workers and their managers that contributes to an accurate risk assessment. But questions should be formulated correctly - instead of “Have you completed the training?” ask “When was the last briefing?”, “List the labor protection requirements before starting work.” If the answers about the date of the briefing differ from the log or the employees do not remember the basic rules, the conclusion follows that the process is formal.

By analyzing the totality of the responses received, we can draw a conclusion about the level of risk in the department.

The visual risk assessment process is characterized by the following examples:

Tools used in the workplace (for example, knives for unpacking boxes), although they are relatively the same cost, pose completely different levels of danger to the worker.
Loose wires are one of the leading causes of falls in the office.
A cluttered workplace and lack of protective elements (protective shields) significantly increase the likelihood of injury.
Violations of the rules for carrying out loading and unloading operations put at risk not only the employee who committed the violation, but also other participants in the work process.
The lack of fencing at the work site increases the risk of a vehicle hitting a worker.
The absence of regulated protective equipment during work is a gross violation of labor safety requirements.

Drawing up risk identification cards

The risk map form is being developed and should include the following main points:

1) Production process

The process, as a result of which an increase in risk is possible, may be called: “Moving in space to carry out work activities.”

2) Dangerous event

May have options (using the example of “fall risk”):

formation of ice, ice;
the formation of condensation on the tiles due to temperature differences;
slippery floor surface;
flooring defects;
loose wires;
high threshold;
non-use of safety shoes.

3) Risk management measures

Existing measures to reduce risk are listed and their effectiveness is assessed.

4) Probability and possible severity of injury as a result of the occurrence of the analyzed event.

For this assessment, the “matrix method” is acceptable.

The identified and described risks are summarized in general risk identification cards for departments and for the enterprise as a whole, and are presented in table form:

The main thing after drawing up risk maps is to develop measures to reduce risks. First of all, for high and medium level risks.

Difference from special assessment of working conditions:

the risk assessment procedure is not strictly regulated;
there are no requirements for it to be carried out by specially accredited companies, whose specialists have appropriate training and accreditation and are responsible for their expert opinions;
the burden on the employer in the form of payment for risk assessment services is not compensated by a reduction in the insurance premium rate both in the case of low risks and when the employer takes sufficient measures to reduce them.

Risk Assessment Perspectives

Risk assessment is one of the important elements of a modern management system, but until now it has not been properly stated in legislation. For this reason, a formal approach to the procedure for assessing occupational risks is currently widespread in practice.

It is necessary to distinguish between the assessment of professional risks and the risk-based approach that Rostrud has been applying when conducting scheduled and unscheduled inspections of employers since 2018 as part of the Federal Labor Supervision.

Hello! Today, the question is often raised about the need to create an occupational risk management system at an enterprise, but it is not clear what regulatory documents need to be used and how to set up such a system in one’s enterprise. Please consult.

Expert answer:

Good afternoon

Indeed, today there are several regulatory 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 establishes a requirement for the involvement of workers in the process of identifying hazards and assessing risks in the workplace (clause 3.10.2.2), as well as for the continuous improvement of 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 identifies 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). Regarding the methodology, the document determines that risk assessment should be proactive.

3. GOST R ISO 31000-2010. Risk management, which defines the general principles of risk management.

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

5. GOST R 51897-2011/ISO Guide 73:2009. Risk management. Terms and Definitions. The standard was introduced to replace GOST R 51897-2002 and 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 set goals (clause 1.1). The term “risk owner” appears - a person or organization with 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 for the selection and application of risk assessment methods: Appendix A provides a brief description of risk assessment methods, Appendix B provides a description of risk assessment methods.

The difficulty for the employer is that the above documents do not allow one to clearly determine what methodology is used to carry out risk assessment procedures? at their own enterprise and this issue is left to the employer.

If we look at the experience of most large international companies in Russia, which are actively implementing international standards at their enterprises, including OHSAS 18001 “Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems. Requirements", which, in particular, determines the existence of a risk assessment procedure at the enterprise, we can highlight basic steps for organizing risk assessment work:

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

2. Making a decision on the enterprise’s readiness to transition to risk management.

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

4. Analysis of dangerous/harmful production factors.

5. Drawing up a risk matrix.

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

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

8. Constant risk assessment at each workplace.

9. Implementation of corrective measures.

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

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

The fundamental point of using an occupational risk management system in enterprise management is a clear understanding of its purpose. This is indeed a very effective tool for moving labor protection in Russia to a qualitatively new level of safety culture.