Assessment of environmental risks of the organization's activities. Environmental risk and its management Management of environmental risks in the enterprise
Shlegel Olga Vyacheslavovna, Applicant of the Faculty of Economics and Management of the National Economy, Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University), Russia
Publish your monograph in high quality for only 15 tr!
The base price includes proofreading of the text, ISBN, DOI, UDC, LBC, legal copies, uploading to the RSCI, 10 author's copies with delivery across Russia.
Moscow + 7 495 648 6241
Sources:
1. Bashkin V.N. Ecological risks: calculation, management, insurance. - M .: Higher. Shk., 2007. - 360 p.: ill. − ISBN 978-5-06-005559-7.
2. Davydova S.L., Teplyakov V.V. Environmental problems of oil refining - M.: RUDN University, 2010 - 175 p.: ill. − ISBN 978-5-209-03229-8.
3. Drugov Yu.S., Rodin A.A. Ecological analyzes during oil spills and oil products - M.: BINOM. Knowledge Laboratory, 2007. - 270 p.: ill. − ISBN 978-5-94774-503-0.
4. Orlov V., Gosteeva O., Kapital Insurance Company has created a reliable insurance coverage for all enterprises of the LUKOIL Group [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://www.oilru.com/nr/176/4062.
5. Approximately 10% of the produced oil is “lost” in Russia per year [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://primamobile.ru/show/?id=68967.
6. Yakovlev V.V. Ecological safety, risk assessment: monograph. - St. Petersburg: International Center for Environmental Security of the Baltic Sea Region: Publishing House NP Future Strategy, 2006. - 476 p.: ill. − ISBN 5-903247-04-0.
* This work is not a scientific work, is not a final qualifying work and is the result of processing, structuring and formatting the collected information, intended to be used as a source of material for self-preparation of educational work.
Introduction
1. Definition of environmental risk
1.1 The concept of environmental risk
1.2 Risk classification
2. Environmental risk assessment
3. Environmental risk management
Conclusion
List of sources used
Introduction
A serious study of the problems associated with risk began during the Renaissance, when the theory of probability appeared, but the science of risk was finally formed only in the last quarter of the twentieth century. The last decade has shown that the science of risk is becoming one of the leading sciences in the 21st century. The reason for this is the steady increase in the diversity and scope of risk manifestation and related problems. On the one hand, due to the anthropogenic impact on the natural environment, natural hazards have become less predictable; the increase in the energy stored in the objects of the technosphere increased the destructive power of hazardous man-made phenomena, etc. On the other hand, the growth in the quality of life is accompanied by an increase in the sensitivity of the population to negative impacts caused by natural, man-made, social and economic hazards.
In recent years, in Russia, the priorities in environmental policy, based on the consideration of MPC and other norms and regulatory impacts on nature, are being revised. Reason: the low efficiency of the normative approach due to the possibility of a subjective approach to the "norm" and the manipulation of this concept. In this regard, the concept of environmental risk is gradually being laid in the basis of the state environmental policy in the conditions of progressive pollution.
Risks are associated with the property of ambiguity of the processes taking place in the world. Risk exists wherever there is uncertainty about the future. Risk is an inevitable reality for everyone, it is, was and will be everywhere. Therefore, they need to be engaged, evaluated and managed.
The purpose of this course work is to identify and manage environmental risk.
Objectives of the course work:
Define environmental risk;
Consider the classification of risks associated with environmental pollution;
Risk assessment;
Environmental risk management.
1. Definition of environmental risk
1.1. The concept of environmental risk
For an objective quantitative assessment, comparison, analysis, and management of the impact of pollutants of a different and diverse nature, a risk methodology has been actively developed in recent decades abroad and in Russia.
The unreasonable actions of man quite often on a historical time scale led to severe environmental consequences, which sometimes changed the way of life of large groups of people and even entire nations. The modern development of social production is characterized by an increase in the complexity and concentration of industrial facilities, potentially dangerous in terms of possible consequences. The risk of accidents increases. Emergencies threaten the health and life of people, cause irreparable damage to nature, destroy material and cultural values.
In the scientific literature, there are many formulations of the concept of environmental risk. A large number of definitions of this concept indicates the incompleteness of the development of the science of risks and their consequences. Most often, the risk is associated with the interaction of various contradictions in the anthropogenic and life activities of people, which can create objective conditions for the occurrence of negative consequences that are random in nature. Based on this, risk can be understood as the probability of manifestation of the consequences of adverse events. Some authors define risk as the damage caused by the consequences of adverse events. Others - both as the probability of occurrence of events of a random nature, and as damage caused by losses.
Environmental risk is an assessment of the likelihood of negative changes in the natural environment caused by anthropogenic or other impacts at all levels (from point to global). Environmental risk is also understood as a probable measure of the danger of causing harm to the natural environment in the form of possible losses over a certain time. It is advisable to distinguish between absolute and relative risks.
Absolute risk - the number of additional cases of pathological effects caused by exposure to any factor or their combination in terms of dose unit and time unit per person. For example, diseases (frequency) due to exposure are only a part of the total risk, i.e. excess due to exposure (we assume that the impact of factors is additive) over the spontaneous (expected) level. In its most elementary form, absolute risk is characterized by the ratio of people affected (sick not only from exposure) to the size of the population.
Relative risk is the ratio of the frequency of adverse effects in a population exposed to a harmful factor to the frequency of the same effects in the absence of the factor (in the same population). The expression "the same population" implies the similarity of gender, age, ethnicity and social structures.
The definition of environmental risk according to N. F. Reimers: Environmental risk - the probability of adverse consequences of any (intentional and accidental, gradual and catastrophic) anthropogenic changes in natural systems, objects and factors is estimated by the calculated probability of a negative event, for example, death in a catastrophe, accident, the likelihood of illness due to air pollution, etc. Such a risk is considered acceptable (maximum acceptable, reasonable) if the number of victims as a result of immediate or distant death (with its clear connection with the event in question), chronic disease, etc. from a hypothetical catastrophe or accident does not exceed one case per million (10-6) inhabitants per year. A risk of 10-8 (1 case per 100 million people per year) is considered negligible. Further efforts to reduce risk entail economic and socially meaningless costs. For ecosystems, the probability of death of 5% of the species included in the biocenosis is considered the maximum acceptable risk.
Negligible environmental risk - the minimum level of acceptable environmental risk. The environmental risk is at the level of fluctuations in the background risk level or is defined as 1% of the maximum permissible environmental risk. In turn, the background risk is the risk due to the presence of the effects of nature and the human social environment.
Any excess of the limits of acceptable environmental risk in individual industries must be suppressed by law. For this purpose, the activities of environmentally hazardous industries are limited or suspended, and at the decision-making stages. Permissible environmental risk is assessed with the help of state environmental expertise and, if it is exceeded, the materials submitted for approval are rejected.
The environmental risk factor exists in any production, regardless of their location. However, there are regions where, in comparison with ecologically more prosperous areas, the probability of negative changes in ecosystems, as well as the probability of depletion of the natural resource potential and, as a result, the risk of loss of health and life for humans, are many times higher. These regions are called high ecological risk.
Within the regions of increased environmental risk, the following zones are distinguished:
1) chronic pollution of the environment;
2) increased environmental hazard;
3) emergency environmental situation;
4) environmental disaster.
Ecological emergency zones include territories in which, as a result of the impact of negative anthropogenic factors, stable negative changes in the environment occur that threaten public health, the state of natural ecosystems, and the gene pools of plants and animals.
In Russia, such zones include the areas of the Northern Caspian Sea, Baikal, the Kola Peninsula, recreational areas of the Black and Azov Seas, the industrial zone of the Urals, etc. , intense wind erosion - new ones were added. First of all, this is flooding, progressive salinization and waterlogging of lands caused by surge phenomena in the expanded water area of the Caspian Sea. Flooding and flooding of land has already caused the loss of 320 thousand hectares of agricultural land.
By decrees of the President or resolutions of the Government of Russia on the basis of state environmental expertise, a part of the territory of the Russian Federation is declared an ecological disaster zone, where irreversible changes in the environment have occurred, resulting in a significant deterioration in public health, destruction of natural ecosystems, degradation of flora and fauna. First of all, this is the zone of influence of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, as well as Kuzbass, the steppe regions of Kalmykia. In the near abroad, the most dangerous ecological zone is the Urals and the Urals. The legal regime and financing of costs for improving the environment depend on whether the territory belongs to one or another zone of increased environmental risk.
The concept of individual environmental risk is widely used. This is a risk that is usually identified with the likelihood that a person will experience adverse environmental impacts in the course of their life. Individual environmental risk characterizes the environmental hazard at a certain point where the individual is located, i.e. characterizes the distribution of risk in space. This concept can be widely used to quantify areas affected by negative factors.
Thus, the concept of environmental risk allows for a wide class of phenomena and processes to give a quantitative description of environmental hazards. It is this quality of risk assessment that is of interest to environmental insurance.
In all industrialized countries there is a strong tendency to apply the concept of acceptable risk, but the policy of Russia, more than in other countries, is based on the concept of absolute safety. Therefore, when evaluating the acceptability of various levels of economic risk at the first stage, one can limit oneself to considering the risk of only those harmful consequences that ultimately lead to death, since reliable statistical data are sufficient for this indicator.
Environmental risk cannot be considered in isolation from safety, since environmental risk is a quantitative and qualitative indicator of the level of environmental safety. Ecological security is the state of protection of the biosphere and human society, and at the state level - the state from threats resulting from anthropogenic and natural impacts on the environment. The concept of environmental safety includes a system of regulation and management that makes it possible to predict, prevent, and, in case of occurrence, eliminate the development of emergency situations.
In its essence, risk is an event with negative, especially unfavorable economic consequences, which may occur in the future at some point in an unknown amount. There is a point of view according to which one can talk about risk only when there is a deviation between the planned and actual results. This deviation can be either positive or negative. Negative - occurs when the result is unfavorable, positive - occurs if the actual result is more favorable than expected.
The actual question is how to prevent or minimize the severe consequences of emergencies caused by accidents, pollution and destruction of the biosphere, natural disasters? The concept of absolute safety has until recently been the foundation on which safety standards around the world have been built. To prevent accidents, additional technical devices were introduced - engineering safety systems, organizational measures were taken to ensure a high level of discipline, strict work regulations.
Harm to the natural environment under various anthropogenic and natural impacts is obviously inevitable, but it should be minimized and economically justified. Any economic or other decisions should be taken in such a way as not to exceed the limits of harmful effects on the environment. It is very difficult to establish these limits, since the thresholds for the impact of many anthropogenic and natural factors are unknown. Therefore, environmental risk calculations should be probabilistic and multivariate, with the allocation of risk to human health and the natural environment.
1.2. Risk classification
The general classification of risks provides for the existence of environmental, transport, political and special risks. The classification of risks, taking into account the relationship with the risk of environmental pollution, is shown in fig. 1.2.1., shows the variety of risks by nature of origin, scale, types of hazard, nature of interaction with people and other factors.
Classification of risks, taking into account the relationship with the risk of environmental pollution
Environmental risk, as one of the types of risk, can be classified based on the basic classification of risks, by the scale of manifestation, by the degree of acceptability, by forecasting, by the possibility of prevention, by the possibility of insurance.
Based on the causes of occurrence, it is possible to present the following classification of environmental risks:
Natural and environmental risks - risks caused by changes in the natural environment. Techno-environmental risks - risks caused by the emergence and development of the technosphere:
Risk of sustainable man-caused impacts - the risk associated with changes in the environment as a result of normal economic activity;
Risk of catastrophic impacts - the risk associated with changes in the environment as a result of man-made disasters, accidents, incidents;
Socio-environmental risks - risks caused by the protective reaction of the state and society to the aggravation of the environmental situation:
Ecological and regulatory risk - the risk caused by the adoption of environmental laws and regulations or their constant tightening;
Environmental and political risk - the risk caused by environmental protests;
Economic and environmental risks - risks caused by financial and economic activities.
Based on the classification of environmental risks, it is possible to identify entities whose activities are a source of increased danger to the environment, and take measures to prevent the realization of risks, to protect the object from the impact of environmental risk factors on it.
2. Environmental risk assessment
It is practically impossible to exclude the danger of manifestation of an ecological risk or any other, and thereby protect people from the effects of toxic substances, harmful radiation, and other pollutants of the human environment. However, reducing these dangers, in other words, minimizing the likelihood of risk, is a real challenge. To solve it, it is necessary to have risk assessment methods, including both determining the probability of an adverse event occurring and the probable damage from the consequences of this event.
Risk assessment includes the recognition, measurement and characterization of threats to the well-being, health and life of people. It includes research into the causes of risk and their impact on populations. Various procedures are applied to identify the spectrum of hazards that exceed the minimum impact thresholds, determine when and where they are most likely, compare and predict their impacts, and evaluate possible directions for protective and compensatory actions. An assessment of the risk of natural and man-made disasters must be undertaken before decisions are made on a risk management strategy. Formally, risk assessment is the last in a group of analytical procedures to help make administrative decisions related to the risk of catastrophes. These procedures are intended for ways of comparing and summarizing various information about certain alternatives for choosing organizational measures. They are intended to provide criteria for selecting alternatives that are respectively the most environmentally efficient, the most technologically acceptable and best suited to a particular environment. Risk assessment adds another dimension to the choice of organizational measures by including information on the probability of destruction of natural systems, accidents on technical systems and the possible consequences of these events for the population.
Risk is a probabilistic characteristic of the threat that arises in the case under consideration for the natural environment (and humans) with possible anthropogenic impacts or other phenomena or events.
The concept of risk assessment includes two elements: risk assessment (Risk Assesment) and risk management (Risk Management).
Risk assessment is a scientific analysis of its origin, including its identification, determination of the degree of danger in a particular situation. In applied ecology, the concept of risk is associated with sources of danger for ecological systems and processes occurring in them. The environmental indicators of damage (environmental risk) in this case include: destruction of biota, harmful, sometimes irreversible impact on ecosystems, deterioration of the quality of the environment associated with its pollution, increased likelihood of specific diseases, land alienation, loss of forests, lakes, rivers, seas, etc.
Environmental risk assessment can be carried out on the basis of available scientific and statistical data on environmentally significant events, disasters, on the contribution of the environmental factor to the state of sanitary and environmental well-being of the population, on the impact of environmental pollution on the state of biocenoses, etc.
Statistical evaluation based on the experience of studying similar situations;
Expert review.
The statistical approach involves the use of the apparatus of probability theory and is recommended in cases where significant experience has been accumulated in the implementation of projects of this type.
If a project of this type is being implemented for the first time, then it is necessary to use expert assessments. The method of expert assessments assumes that a group of experts (engineers, specialists in the field of nature protection) jointly compile a list of possible accidents. Next, the engineers independently make their opinions about the probabilities of accidents, which are then averaged. Ecological experts in the same way contribute their opinions on the costs of eliminating the impact of each accident on the state of the environment. Environmental risk is calculated as the net present value of losses due to the elimination of the impact on the environment from possible accidents.
Much attention is paid to the assessment of acceptable environmental risk, especially when making decisions on investing in a particular production. At the same time, the following rules of acceptable environmental risk are taken into account in case of anthropogenic impact:
The inevitability of losses in the natural environment;
Minimal losses in the natural environment;
A real possibility of restoring losses in the natural environment;
No harm to human health and the need for changes in the natural environment;
Proportionality of ecological harm and economic effect.
The effectiveness of risk assessment significantly depends on the level of:
1) development and accuracy of calculation methods;
2) auxiliary means for applying the methods in practice (databases, systems for obtaining information, etc.);
3) qualifications and competence of experts performing risk analysis;
4) organization of risk analysis, including issues of selecting objects for analysis, financing of expertise and ways to attract the most qualified specialists for expertise.
In a broader understanding of risk as a measure of danger, quantitative risk criteria can be different. Accordingly, the ultimate goal of risk analysis may be to determine the social, potential or environmental risk or likelihood of a particular undesirable event occurring. The use of specific procedures for risk analysis may differ, but the need remains to identify hazards, assess risk and develop, if necessary, recommendations for risk reduction.
Methods for conducting risk analysis are determined by the selected criteria for acceptable risk. In this case, the criteria can be set by regulatory documents or determined at the risk analysis planning stage. The concept of risk is used to measure hazard and usually refers to an individual or population, property or the environment. To emphasize that we are talking about a measurable quantity, the concept of "degree of risk" or "level of risk" is used. Acceptable risk levels, including individual risk, are determined on a case-by-case basis. This approach expands the scope of the risk analysis method and gives the process a creative character, which is essential for hazard analysis. Acceptable risk criteria based on the results of expert assessments are becoming more widespread. These approaches typically categorize industries into four (or more) high, intermediate, low, or negligible risk groups. In this approach, a high level of risk is generally considered unacceptable, an intermediate level requires a program of work to reduce the level of risk, a low level is considered acceptable, and insignificant is not considered at all. The main requirement for choosing an acceptable risk criterion when conducting a risk analysis is not its rigor, but its validity and certainty. The correct choice of an acceptable risk and its measure will make both the procedure and the results of the risk analysis clear and understandable, which will significantly increase the effectiveness of risk management. At different stages of the life cycle of a hazardous facility, specific objectives of the risk analysis may be determined.
To eliminate the danger of the manifestation of environmental risk, you can use the theory of probability, according to which the non-failure operation of an object over a certain time interval is estimated by the function of reliability (non-failure operation) P(t):
This dependence is determined by the function λ(t)=-P(t)/P(t), which reflects the failure rate. It is equal to the probability that, after failure-free operation up to the time t, an accident will occur in the subsequent small time interval τ. The accident risk function as a result of any disturbances in the normal functioning of the object, which characterizes the probability of failure H(t), can be found from the expression
In a number of cases, as experience shows, the function λ(t) after an insignificant initial period of operation of an object for a long time is characterized by sufficient stability, i.e. λ(t)=const. This allows you to get an exponential distribution:
If we keep in mind that the mathematical expectation of the service life (resource) or mean time to failure = 1/λ, then the risk function can be represented as
Note that the use of the achievements of probability theory for risk assessment is fruitful and effective when certain factual material has been accumulated, reflecting the level of reliability (or accident rate) of a particular production, facility, etc. When there is no information on accident statistics or this information is incomplete, then the risk assessment is carried out by the method of expert assessments.
When organizing production activities at an enterprise or facility, it is important not only to determine the likelihood of the risk of an environmental accident, but also to assess the magnitude of the risk.
Recently, much attention has been paid to risk assessment issues, especially in connection with the development of principles and mechanisms for environmental insurance, as well as the development of measures to prevent accidents and disasters, and eliminate their consequences. On fig. 2.1. an assessment of the sustainability of any system to emergencies and the sequence of decision-making after this assessment is displayed.
Evaluation of the resilience to emergencies of any system and the sequence of decision-making
3. Environmental risk management
In accordance with the concept of safety of the population and the environment, the practical activities of risk management should be structured in such a way that society as a whole receives the most affordable amount of benefits, and these benefits are distributed evenly among its members.
Environmental risk management is a decision-making procedure that takes into account the assessment of environmental risk, as well as the technological and environmental possibilities for its prevention. Risk communication is also included in this process.
To analyze the risk, establish its permissible limit in connection with safety requirements and make management decisions, it is necessary:
1) the presence of an information system that allows you to quickly monitor existing sources of danger and the state of objects of possible destruction, in particular, statistical material on environmental epidemiology;
2) information about the proposed areas of economic activity, projects and technical solutions that may affect the level of environmental safety, as well as programs for probabilistic assessment of the risk associated with them;
3) safety review and comparison of alternative projects and technologies that are sources of risk;
4) development of a technical and economic strategy for increasing safety and determining the optimal cost structure for managing the magnitude of risk and reducing it to an acceptable level from a social, economic and environmental point of view;
5) drawing up risk forecasts and analytical determination of the level of risk at which the growth in the number of environmental damage stops;
6) formation of organizational structures, expert systems and regulatory documents designed to perform the specified functions and decision-making procedures;
7) influencing public opinion and promoting scientific data on environmental risk levels in order to focus on objective, rather than emotional or populist risk assessments.
In accordance with the principle of diminishing risks, an important control tool is the risk substitution procedure. According to her, the risk introduced by a new technique is acceptable if its use contributes less to the total risk to which people are exposed, compared with the use of another, alternative technique that solves the same economic problem. This concept is closely related to the problem of environmental adequacy of production quality.
Risk management principles include strategic and tactical goals. In strategic goals, the desire is expressed to achieve the highest possible level of welfare of society as a whole, and in tactical goals - the desire to increase the safety of the population, life expectancy. They stipulate both the interests of groups of the population, and of each individual in protection from excessive risk.
The most important principle is the provision that risk management should include the entire range of hazards existing in society, and the total risk from them for any person and for society as a whole cannot exceed the “acceptable” level for him. And, finally, the policy in the field of risk management should be built within the framework of strict limits on the impact on natural ecosystems, consisting of requirements not to exceed the magnitude of the impacts of the maximum permissible environmental loads on ecosystems.
In an unexpected, sudden situation characterized by uncertainty, acute conflict, stressful state of the population, significant socio-economic and environmental damage can be defined as an emergency. Risk to people is expressed in two categories: individual risk, defined as the likelihood that a person experiences a certain impact in the course of their activities; social risk, defined as the ratio between the number of people killed in one accident and the probability of this accident.
The procedure for risk assessment and management is as follows.
The first element is the identification of danger, the establishment of sources and risk factors, as well as the objects of their potential impact, the main forms of such interaction.
The second element is exposure assessment, i.e. real impact, risk factor on humans and the environment.
The third element of risk assessment is related to the analysis of the impact of risk factors on the population and the environment, the determination of the resistance of a person and the ecosystem to the impact of a certain destabilizing factor.
The fourth and final element is a complete risk characterization using qualitative and quantitative parameters.
The final phase of the risk assessment model, risk characterization is at the same time the first link in the risk management procedure.
The main goal of risk management is to identify ways to reduce risk given resource and time constraints. The risk management model also consists of four parts and stages.
The first stage is related to risk characterization. At the initial stage, a comparative description of the risks is given in order to establish priorities. At the final phase of risk assessment, the degree of danger (harmfulness) is established.
The second step is to determine the acceptability of the risk. The risk is compared with a number of socio-economic factors:
Benefits from a particular type of economic activity;
Losses caused by the use of the type of activity;
Availability and possibilities of regulatory measures to reduce the negative impact on the environment and human health.
The comparison process is based on the cost-benefit method.
The comparison of “non-risk” factors with “risk ones” reveals the essence of the risk management process. Three variants of decisions are possible: the risk is fully acceptable; the risk is partially acceptable; the risk is completely unacceptable.
At present, the level of the negligible risk limit is usually set as 1% of the maximum allowable. In the last two cases, it is necessary to establish the proportions of control, which is the task of the third stage of the risk management procedure.
The third stage - determining the proportions of control - consists in choosing one of the "typical" measures that help reduce (in the first and second cases) or eliminate (in the third case) the risk.
The fourth stage is the adoption of a regulatory decision - the definition of normative acts (laws, decrees, instructions) and their provisions corresponding to the implementation of the “standard” measure that was established at the previous stage. This element, completing the risk management process, simultaneously links all its stages, as well as the stages of risk assessment, into a single decision-making process, into a single concept of risk. Approximate risk assessment sequence: primary hazard identification; a description of the source of danger and associated damage; risk assessment under normal operating conditions; risk assessment of possible hypothetical (moment of probability) accidents in production, storage and transportation of hazardous substances; a range of possible scenarios for the development of an accident; statistical estimates and probabilistic risk analysis.
There are 4 risk management methods: 1) elimination; 2) loss prevention and control; 3) insurance; 4) absorption.
The abolition excludes any activity in the risk zone. The method is absolutely reliable, but its widespread use means a complete curtailment of activities.
Loss prevention means taking preventive measures that eliminate or reduce the risk of an undesirable process occurring.
Insurance is the distribution of possible losses among a large group of individuals and legal entities exposed to the same type of risk.
Absorption involves the recognition of risk without distributing it through insurance. The managerial decision on absorption can be made for two reasons: 1) in cases where other methods of risk management cannot be used (for risks, the probability of which is quite small); 2) when applying self-insurance.
Risk management solves two main tasks:
1) Analysis of the magnitude of environmental risk and decision-making aimed at its reduction to the limits corresponding to the acceptable level of risk;
2) Analysis of the cost of environmental risk and the implementation of methods to reduce it.
An outwardly unexpected, suddenly emerging situation, characterized by uncertainty, acute conflict, stressful state of the population, significant socio-economic and environmental damage, is called an emergency situation (ES). Emergencies can be associated with natural disasters, with the release of harmful substances into the environment, with the occurrence of fires, explosions, etc. The main directions of state regulation in the field of risk reduction and emergency mitigation are: legal, economic and regulatory and methodological. State regulation is carried out by representative and executive authorities through the relevant authorities of the territorial and functional subsystems of the Russian System for the Prevention of Emergencies (PSChS) at all levels: federal, regional, territorial and facility.
The main directions of legal, economic and regulatory and methodological regulation in the field of risk reduction and mitigation of the consequences of emergencies are determined by the tasks assigned to the RS ES in accordance with the Federal Law “On the protection of the population and territories from natural and man-made emergencies” (dated November 11, 1994 .).
Legal regulation in the field of risk reduction and mitigation of the consequences of emergencies is ensured by the creation of the necessary legal framework.
The environmental law of Russia, economic regulation is ensured by the presence and improvement of the existing economic mechanism for financial support of measures to eliminate emergencies. These include budgetary and non-budgetary sources formed through taxation, penalties and benefits, specialized funds and insurance.
Normative and methodological regulation ensures the creation of the necessary and sufficient normative-technical and normative-methodological base, constituting a single information and methodological basis for solving problems. The main objectives of regulation to regulate the risk reduction and mitigation of the consequences of emergencies are:
Regulation of emergency forecasting;
Regulation of prevention
The occurrence of accidents, catastrophes, natural disasters;
Regulation of the organization of actions in emergency situations and activities to mitigate them;
Regulation of post-accident situations; regulation of liability and indemnification;
Regulation of information support in emergency situations, etc.
“Fundamentals of the Legislation of the Russian Federation Regulation on the Protection of the Health of Citizens” dated July 22, 1993, along with the regulation of administrative relations, ensure the protection of the rights of citizens, guarantee the right to health protection, the right to information about factors affecting health. The rights of citizens to health protection in disadvantaged areas and the rights of citizens to appeal against the actions of state bodies and officials in the field of health protection are especially secured. Law of the Russian Federation “On Environmental Protection” dated January 10, 2002 No. for the first time in the history of Russian legislation, the right of citizens to health protection from the adverse effects of the natural environment caused by economic or other activities, accidents, catastrophes, natural disasters is proclaimed.
Enterprises, institutions, organizations and citizens that have caused harm to the environment, health and property of citizens, the national economy by pollution of the natural environment, damage, destruction, damage, irrational use of natural resources, destruction of natural ecological systems and other environmental violations, are obliged to compensate this in full volume.
In Russia, there is a rapid expansion of especially unfavorable ecological zones. These zones make up 15% of the territory of our country with a population of about 50 million people. The quality of the environment is becoming a limiting factor in the socio-economic development and health of the population of an increasing number of Russian regions. In our country, 30% of the population dies due to "dirty" ecology.
In conclusion, about one of the principles of risk theory. It reads as follows: “An activity in which even a small group of the population is exposed to excessive risk cannot be justified, even if this activity is beneficial to society as a whole.” In most Western countries, this principle is implemented.
Conclusion
The theory of risk is being intensively developed, but many of the fundamental provisions of this science remain debatable. Until now, there is no single definition of the concept of “risk”, very often the term “risk” is used as identical to the term “danger” or as a synonym for probability.
The risk of exposure to a particular type of pollutant is defined as the likelihood that a person or their offspring will experience some harmful effect as a result of this exposure. The risk analysis methodology makes it possible to build a "scale" by which it is possible to assess and compare the impact of adverse factors on the environment and human health. The methodology for assessing and comparing risks is currently not just a tool for scientific research, but also an officially recognized method of analysis by the Ministry of Health. In the field of practical risk analysis associated with exposure to chemical hazardous substances, work is just beginning.
The perception of environmental risk by society is a reality that determines the attitude towards your enterprise no less than the actual characteristics of the impact (for example, the magnitude of emissions and discharges of pollutants), changes in the state of public health. And if your goal is a non-conflict dialogue with the public, when discussing aspects of environmental impact, necessary environmental measures and joint action plans, you should certainly take into account the factors of social acceptability of risk.
Pollution of the natural environment with gaseous, liquid and solid substances and production waste, causing degradation of the environment and damaging the health of the population, remains the most acute environmental problem of priority social and economic importance.
The training of specialists who can competently engage in risk research has become topical. The main task of such specialists (sometimes called risk managers) is to develop recommendations for decision makers on effective risk management measures.
List of sources used
1. Akimov V.A., Lesnykh V.V., Radaev N.N.; EMERCOM of Russia - Risks in nature, technosphere, society and economy, Moscow: Business Express, 2004;
2. Ivanenko N. V. Ecological toxicology. Ed. Maslennikova N. G. - M., - 2004;
3. Ignatieva M.N. - Economics of nature management: textbook - Ural. State. mountain university - Yekaterinburg: Publishing House of USGU, 2009;
4. Prokhorov B. B. - Ecology of man. Conceptual-terminological dictionary. - Rostov-on-Don. 2005;
5. Synzynys B.I., Tyantova E.N., Melekhova O.P. - Ecological risk, ed. Logos, 2005;
6. Federal Law "On Environmental Protection";
It's been a long time since I've been asked to write about environmental risk management. I still refuse, because "the position of the author may not coincide with the opinion of the editors." But in my livejournal, I think it is still possible to write about it.
I will make a reservation right away that we will not talk about such things as “risk assessment for public health”, which is required of nature users, in particular, SanPiN 2.2.1 / 2.1.1.1200-03 “Sanitary protection zones and sanitary classification of enterprises, structures and other objects.” This is a slightly different topic. Here there is a place to be scientific research and such research is a kind of "high matter" subject only to scientists from the State Research Institute of ECH and GOS named after. A.N. Sysin of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences (State Institution Research Institute of Human Ecology and Environmental Hygiene named after A.N. Sysin of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences) and those who joined them. I will talk about more mundane things, such as corporate risk management as applied to activities in the field of environmental protection and nature management.
In general, with the concept of "risk management" (including the Wikipedia description at the link above), the situation is approximately the same as with many other economic and management practices. A rather elementary thing, which was covered with various clever terms, to such an extent that to the uninitiated it seems to be something from the realm of science fiction about how spaceships plow the expanses of the Bolshoi Theater. But, in fact, everything is quite elementary.
Did you know that almost your entire life is all about risk management?
Let's start with a little theory and definitions, and then I'll try to tell on my fingers what it is and what it is eaten with. So:
Risk - uncertainty of occurrence of the event, s help positively (opportunities) or negatively (threats) affect the achievement of established goals.
Sounds smart. Let's decompose this definition into more understandable expressions and move on to examples.
“Uncertainty about the occurrence of an event” - “What is the probability of meeting a dinosaur on the street? 50 to 50 - either I meet or I don’t meet ”(a joke about a blonde)
“Able to positively (opportunities) or negatively (threats) influence the achievement of established goals” - “Who does not take risks does not drink champagne” (folk wisdom, voiced, I don’t remember who).
Here we still need to make a lyrical digression. This is usually not written in books on risk management, but it must be understood. Every event has its causes and consequences. Risk events are no exception. Moreover, one risk event can have a lot of reasons, and a lot of consequences.
You manage risks on a daily basis in various situations. You just don't always know what you're doing. As an example, let's take the risk of being hit by a car while crossing the road. In this case, a risky event is the very contact of the mortal bodies of a pedestrian with an aggressively designed radiator grill of a product of the domestic or foreign automobile industry.
The consequences of this event can be many:
Death of a pedestrian and a driver (do you think this does not happen?);
Death is only a pedestrian;
Pedestrian disability;
Severe bodily injury to a pedestrian that does not lead to disability;
Light and moderate bodily injuries;
The absence of any bodily injury (got off with a slight fright);
Etc. (in fact, there are a lot of options, including the death of the driver from a cardiac arrest with a slight fright of a pedestrian).
There can also be many reasons for this event:
You run across the Moscow Ring Road;
The driver ignored the traffic light;
The driver mixed up the gas and brake pedal;
Etc. (up to the point that you fell asleep on the go, crossing the road).
In fact, in order not to be hit by a car, you follow the simplest set of rules that your parents taught you in early childhood and which were deposited under your brain, including:
Do not cross the road in the wrong place;
Wait for a green traffic signal for pedestrians before crossing the road;
Make sure that drivers let you through, even when the traffic light is green;
When crossing the road, look around and do not lose vigilance;
Etc.
In general, this simplest set of rules is risk management.
Let's look at this example from this angle.
In the first step, you define your goal: to live to be 100 years old and care for your great-grandchildren while remaining of sound mind and sound memory, not being confined to a wheelchair.
Then you determine what might prevent you from achieving your goal: death, disability, etc.
Then you define an event that can lead to a consequence that prevents you from reaching your goal: in this case, while crossing the road, being hit by a car.
Actually, the whole chain of “cause-event-consequence” is a risk.
Well, in the final stage, you determine the activities that minimize the possibility offensive events: wait for the green, look around.
It is risk management through prevention of occurrence. Those. your goal in this case is to minimize the possibility of the event occurring.
There are also other risk management methods:
Risk aversion - just never cross the road at all;
Mitigation prevention - well, let's say, walk in hockey gear so that if the car does hit, the injuries are the least severe;
The method of acceptance is to do nothing, it will bring down and to hell with it, one more, one less, what's the difference compared to the World Revolution?
The method of hedging or insurance is to insure your life and health for a tidy sum, so that if you fail to get (or the family will receive, depending on the result) a solid amount of money.
Risk transfer method - in this case, it is difficult to come up with an example of managing risk by transferring it. but, in general, the meaning is this: you are standing on one side of the street, and you need to buy cigarettes on the other side. You give 10 rubles to a bum who crosses the road back and forth and brings you cigarettes. Those. the risk of being hit by a car is not you, but he, and you pay him for it, respectively.
Actually, here are the main methods of risk management.
Accordingly, the purpose of the risk management system is quite simple:
- Identify risk events, their consequences and causes (also called risk factors).
- Assess the risk - i.e. decide for yourself how significant the consequences of the occurrence of the event are and how likely the occurrence of a risky event is due to the listed reasons (well, for example, from the mentioned one, how likely it is to fall asleep on the move, crossing the road).
- Choose the best method to manage each risk.
- Develop risk management activities within the framework of the selected method.
- Control the implementation of activities and monitor the occurrence of a risk event.
The most commonly used methods are insurance and prevention. With insurance, everything is more or less clear, so let's take a closer look at prevention, because it is often this method that is called "risk management".
There is such a diagram, conventionally called the "bow tie" model:
Pretty good drawing. There is a risk factor (graphically depicted as a rectangle labeled "CAUSES"), there is a risk event (red circle in the center), there are consequences (rectangle with the appropriate label).
It should be explained a little. The very reasons for the occurrence of a risk event are the arrows connecting the “REASONS” rectangle and the red circle. And the CAUSES box is a risk factor. Those. this is the activity in which risk events can occur. In our example - a trip to the store, for example.
So, we have carried out the first stage - risk assessment. We know the probability of our risk event occurring. And we know the degree of influence of the consequences of a risky event on the achievement of our goals. At the third stage, we determined that the most appropriate management method for us is risk prevention. In general, the risk management system considers this stage in great detail. There are risk matrices with different parameters. There are various indicators, for example, the integral value of risk. And much more. But today I'm not writing a book about risk management, but a small (ha ha ha!) post on LiveJournal. Thus, I will skip the details of this stage and focus on the fact that we decided to deal with risk prevention. Those. our goal in the context of the risk management system is to minimize the likelihood of a risk event and minimize the consequences of its occurrence. I emphasize. Minimization. Not an exception, but a minimization, since we are talking about risk prevention and not other management methods. Those. when we cross the road, even if we have completed all the activities, and we are walking in hockey equipment, the car can still knock us down. What's next?
That is, roughly speaking, our activities should be a kind of "blocks" on the way of the development of the situation in two directions. "Blocks" between causes and risk events and "blocks" between risk event and consequences.
On the fingers (for example, a pedestrian and a car):
Risk event: car hits a pedestrian.
Cause:the driver ignores the traffic signal.
"Block": make sure the driver is giving way to a pedestrian, and not just following the green traffic light.
Consequence: pedestrian death.
“Block”: put on hockey protective ammunition and a titanium helmet (as a result, instead of the death of a pedestrian, we will get, for example, serious bodily injuries - i.e., severity reduction of consequences)
Thus, we act for all possible causes and consequences. It is important that such "blocks" should be developed in both directions. Several times I came across the approach that it is necessary to influence only the causes. Well, if a risky event did come, then mournfully crawl towards the cemetery. Wicked approach. Hockey equipment and a helmet on your head will not affect whether you get hit by a car or not, but if you do have them, it can help minimize the consequences. But if you don’t have it, and the “block” between the cause and the risky event is “broken”, then ... (this is not a call to wear a helmet, this is just an example to illustrate a general idea).
And it is also important that the “blocks” for the consequences must be developed before the onset of a risk event, otherwise, it is no longer risk management, but crisis management.
Accordingly, after the development of such "blocks" - measures, it is necessary to monitor their implementation, etc. This is already an operational activity in the field of risk management, which should also be considered by the risk management system. But I will not dwell on this in detail either, but will finally move on to the main thing - to risk management in the field of environmental protection and nature management.
In fact, the entire environmental management system, as built in accordance with ISO -14001, and built in accordance with the personal understanding of this system by a specific contractor, contains elements of a risk management system.
It is necessary to understand that the goal of an ecologist working in a completely real sector of the economy is not an abstract “let's protect nature, our mother”. Its goal is to increase the competitiveness of its employer in the field of environmental protection (including by improving the reputation of the employer in the eyes of a variety of "green" parasites of the public), reduce the losses and costs of his employer in the field of environmental protection and nature management (I will continue to write "ecology", although this is methodologically incorrect, but simply shorter), and, possibly, extracting additional "environmental" profits (well, for example, trading in air quotas of greenhouse gases in accordance with the mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol). Let's not be hypocritical, because our goal is exactly this, although we understand that when it is achieved, we, in fact, reduce the anthropogenic load and, ultimately, "save nature, our mother." But we are paid wages not for a green birch under the window, but for very specific production and financial indicators.
From here, in fact, you need to dance.
Knowing the goals, we may well determine the negative consequences of certain events that can lead to, for example:
Deterioration of the reputation of the company / enterprise in the eyes of the public, the state, partners, customers, etc., due to the image of “dirty” production (subsequently - financial losses due, for example, to a reduction in the sales market for products);
Financial losses due to fines, lawsuits, etc., due to the failure to receive the expected "environmental" profit.
Accordingly, our further task is to identify risk events that can lead to these consequences. There is one subtlety here related to the “non-ideal” of our world. If we draw an analogy with our tired example, about a car and a pedestrian, we often do not have pedestrian crossings and traffic lights - there is only one continuous MKAD, which, nevertheless, still needs to be crossed.
What do I want to say? In an “ideal world” where all exposure and other environmental requirements are met, the risk event would be non-compliance. Everything is clear here. But in Russia, non-compliance with established standards is now the rule rather than the exception. This is due to many reasons, the main of which are outdated equipment and technologies and the imperfection of domestic environmental legislation, which establishes such standards that cannot be achieved even theoretically.
In this case, risk events will not exceed the established standards (this will be one of the causes of a risk event, the objective reality in which we exist), but events of a different kind, leading to negative consequences. Everything here is quite individual for each enterprise, therefore, I will not paint examples.
Accordingly, one of the "blocks" on the reasons If a risk event occurs in such a case (I will specify the case: the enterprise has excess emissions into the atmosphere), there will be measures aimed at reducing emissions.
In general, in this way we work out all possible risk events. For each enterprise, there can be a huge number, both “ideal” (the requirement of the law is currently being met, the risk event is non-compliance with the requirement of the law) and “non-ideal” (the requirement is not met - this is the objective reality, the risk event is the application of additional measures, except those that already apply to the enterprise) risks.
And for each we develop measures of influence - both on the causes and on the consequences. Naturally, if we chose risk prevention as a management method.
In general, if you know ISO -14001, you will notice a lot of similarities. The only thing is that the movement is carried out from the other side. If in ISO when developing and implementing a system, the vector of actions goes from activity to its results, then in risk management, on the contrary, from results (from the discrepancy between the result and the planned one) to activity.
Therefore, if you already have an EMS (Environmental Management System) in place, it will not be difficult for you to implement a risk management system. Although, of course, it is most correct to implement both systems simultaneously, integrating them one into the other. And, of course, it is very good if the enterprise already has a corporate risk management system with clearly approved methods and indicators (I didn’t dwell on indicators in principle, since this is a purely subjective thing for each enterprise).
And finally, a few practical "hints".
A document is drawn up for each risk. I used to call it "risk profile" (Eng. risk profile ). This document should contain all information about the identified risk, including the methods and results of its assessment, the proposed management method, and specific impact measures (with indication of deadlines and responsible persons).
for example, the “non-ideal” risk profile may contain the following information:
Risk: failure to implement measures to reduce emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere.
Possible consequences :
Withdrawal/non-issuance of ECB. Increase in the payment for emissions by ___ rubles (payment for excess emissions using kit 25);
Revocation/non-issuance of an emission permit. Increase in the payment for emissions by ___ rubles (payment for the entire volume of emissions using kit 25) with subsequent escalation;
Order to reduce emissions to the level of MPE. Decrease in production by ___ tons / unit. products.
A court decision to suspend the activities of an enterprise for up to 90 days. Loss of __ tons / unit. products.
Criminal prosecution of company officials.
An increase in the number of speeches by Greenpeace activists, a decrease in the company's reputation, and a reduction in the sales market for products.
Possible reasons:
Making a managerial decision not to implement measures in connection with the global world name of the Leninist proletariat;
Disruption of supplies of equipment by suppliers;
Unrestrained drunkenness locksmith Pupkin ...
Suggested control method:
Risk Prevention
Suggested risk management activities:
….
Etc. All the necessary indicators are there. As a result, having received such a document, the head of the enterprise will at least scratch his head before sequestering the budget for the construction of new treatment plants.
In general, I probably told. If there are any questions, I will try to answer.
And most importantly. It must be understood that the environmental risk management system should be part of the corporate risk management system, which, in turn, should be part of the overall management system. As a last resort, the environmental risk management system should be part of the corporate management system (if there is no corporate risk management system). All governance structures should be involved in it. Otherwise, the very fact of identifying and assessing risks will not be enough for their effective management. It will be just a useless toy.
Well, the last. The environmental risk management system is unlikely to exist independently of the environmental management system. And about the basics of creating (including in terms of risk management) an environmental service, I once said.
Typically, a risk is an event that is most likely to happen. As a result of this, various cases can occur - neutral or negative. Speaking about ecology, the level of probability of a negative impact, negative consequences that are dangerous to human life, the safety of natural resources, historical, cultural and material values associated with natural disasters, as well as other factors constitute an environmental risk.
Risk management in general includes the adoption and implementation of management decisions. They should improve the workflow and increase the rate of positive consequences during the occurrence of risks. It is possible to understand the degree of environmental risk by assessing environmental events, disasters, as well as the impact of pollution on the environment.
Let's consider the results of work in the field of risk management using the example of JSC Atomredmetzoloto.
Organization of ARMZ risk management process
The company has made it a rule to carry out a risk assessment procedure at the planning stage, as well as to implement risk hedging programs.
To avoid unpleasant situations, the company is guided by the following aspects:
Modernization of technological equipment;
Compliance with all applicable regulations regarding the production and technological process;
Implementation of the controlling function, both on the part of departments and external organizations;
Civil liability insurance of enterprises to third parties and employees of enterprises.
JSC Atomredmetzoloto complies with all environmental impact standards and contributes to improving environmental safety, which is what the government requires.
Unfortunately, it is worth noting that in recent times the natural environment has suffered greatly from human activities. Violating environmental requirements, we destroy, destroy, pollute the world around us. Take, for example, shale gas production. Much can be said about its harm to the environment.
For example, due to the fact that this activity is an environmental threat, .
Classification of negative environmental impact factors
Pollution can be classified into natural and anthropogenic. Natural are caused by natural phenomena, such as floods, volcanic eruptions, etc. Anthropogenic pollution arises from human activities.
Risk Management in Business Practice
Management of environmental risks in the enterprise, as a rule, is associated with various types of tasks.
For example, the joint-stock financial corporation Sistema conducts an analysis of the effectiveness of the risk management and internal control system every quarter, then evaluates the corporation and all subsidiaries, and then reports on this to shareholders. An annual report is provided to members of the Board of Directors.
An integrated risk management system helps to identify risks at all its stages, analyze them and arrange them by management levels.
In 2013, Sistema's Board of Directors created the Internal Control and Audit Department.
The Department of Internal Control and Audit conducts verification activities in order to obtain reliable information about the actions. And another no less important element of the work of the Internal Control and Audit Department is the improvement of the internal business processes of the company.
The key point of an effective environmental risk management system is the identification of risks and direct work with them. The question is how to manage environmental risks to ensure the highest degree of sustainability in all activities of the company - this contributes to success and reduces the rate of failure.
For environmental risk management processes, research results are of great importance. In the course of preparing the necessary environmental projects, all points must be taken into account. Both quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the risk must be taken into account.
A wide variety of regulatory documents are being developed to prevent or reduce risk. And the scope of these documents can apply not only to one company, but to the entire country. These include laws and regulations related to health protection, improving working conditions, ensuring road safety, standardizing the quality of goods sold, as well as reducing the negative impact that is a detrimental factor in relation to the environment.
Analysis and assessment of environmental risks
Risk analysis and assessment plays a key role in building an effective response system. To analyze and assess environmental risks, it is necessary to identify hazards and causes.
Compliance with the conditions for effective management of social and environmental risks will contribute to the sustainable development of companies.
The risk management process includes a comparison of alternative projects of potentially hazardous facilities and technologies, identifying the most dangerous risk factors that are in effect at this stage. Databases and knowledge bases for expert decision support systems are also being created. And this process also determines investments that are precisely aimed at reducing risks.
It is important to compare the results of the risk assessment. After that, you can find different solutions to reduce them, given that each of these options is evaluated differently. It all depends on the necessary costs for its implementation. And such actions are repeated until the best solution to the problem is chosen.
Standardization issues,ISO 14000
Modern management literature is replete with various approaches. In particular, many companies use ISO 9000 (international quality management standard), ISO 50001 (energy management standard), ISO 22000 (international food safety management standard) and others. With regard to the topic of ecology, ISO has released standard 14,000 - environmental management.
The science of risk was formed in the last quarter of the 20th century, and it will certainly be one of the leading ones in the new century. The reason for this lies in the place taken by risk-related issues. The most important feature of the science of risk is its interdisciplinary nature with the closest interaction between the natural sciences and the humanities.
In industrialized countries, research funding in the field of risk analysis and assessment is constantly growing. For example, in the US chemical industry, 25-30% of funds for research and development are now allocated to solve risk problems, and in pharmacology - more than 50%. Abroad, a circle of specialists of a new type has formed - risk experts, who, according to sociologists, will constitute a new elite stratum of the post-industrial society.
Unfortunately, it cannot be said that the science of risk has received the necessary development in Russia. In the former Soviet Union, this science practically did not exist. Categories such as tolerable or acceptable risk, or processes such as risk management were not considered. The term "risk" is not in the latest editions of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and the Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary, nor in the Philosophical Encyclopedia, nor in the dictionary "Scientific and Technological Progress" published in 1987.
The development of new technologies, the increase in industrial and agricultural production, the expansion of the network of transport systems and systems for the transmission of energy and energy carriers are accompanied by an increase in the technogenic load on the biosphere. This results in more and more emergencies, accidents and catastrophes, which are characterized by significant material, social and environmental consequences. At the same time, as the events of recent decades have shown, major accidents and catastrophes that were previously considered very unlikely are being realized at such high-tech facilities as nuclear power plants, chemical plants, oil and gas pipelines, etc. The need to develop new approaches to ensuring the safety of people and the natural environment has become obvious. That is why in countries with developed economies a new branch of knowledge has emerged - the analysis of environmental risks and their management. Naturally, the training of specialists who can competently engage in risk research has become relevant. The main task of such specialists (sometimes called risk managers) is to develop recommendations for decision makers on effective risk management measures.
RISK AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISK
Risk Definitions
Before assessing the risk, it is necessary to define the term “risk” itself, but there are difficulties along the way. The fact is that in the literature conflicting definitions are used. Often the term “risk” is used as identical to the term “danger”, one can give a number of examples of definitions such as “risk is the danger of future damage or “risk is the danger of adverse consequences of the event under consideration”. Another trend in defining risk is that risk refers to the possibility or likelihood of an adverse event or process. For example, in the Webster dictionary, risk is defined as “danger, possibility of loss or damage”; The French encyclopedic dictionary "Grand Larousse" defines risk as "the possibility or probability of a fact or event, considered as some kind of evil or some kind of damage." Even in the Encyclopedia of the Environment released in 1994, you can read: “risk is the chance that something undesirable may happen.” Apparently, this trend in the definition of risk is inherited from civil law, more precisely, from the practice of insurance, where risk is understood as the probability (chance) of undesirable consequences. In W. Hallenbeck's monograph published in 1993, devoted to the problems of quantitative assessment of environmental risk and the risk of occupational diseases, the term “risk” is considered as a synonym for the terms “probability” and “frequency”.
The idea of the risk associated with the manifestation of specific natural processes has not yet been formed. So, until now there is no unified methodology for assessing the risk of geological processes. When assessing the risk from the impact of earthquakes, various types of damage at specific facilities are considered, and the values of the total damage are considered to be random variables. In this case, the seismic risk is determined by the probability distribution functions of these quantities, concluded in certain time intervals. At the same time, geological and geochemical risks are defined as “the probabilities of activation and manifestation of natural or man-made geological processes in a certain area”. The so-called ecological-geomorphological risk is defined as “the degree of probability of the cumulative manifestation of dangerous and catastrophic processes of relief formation over a certain time interval, entailing environmental consequences.” In terms of probability, E.S. defines the geological risk. Dzektser, proposing to use the total probability formula as a general expression for risk assessment.
A review of scientific publications shows that such an approach to determining the risk of an adverse event, which takes into account not only the probability of this event, but also all its possible consequences, is becoming more common. The probability of an event or process here is one of the risk components, and the measure of consequences (damage) is another. This two-dimensional definition of risk is used in quantitative risk assessment.
However, there is another approach to the definition of risk - multidimensional. It is based on numerous factors responsible for risk perception and influencing risk-related decision making. These factors, identified by psychologists, are of a qualitative nature. To compare the degree of manifestation of these factors, they are assigned conventional units (for example, according to a five-point system: if this factor is considered very strong, then its “weight” is taken as 5, and if it is very weak, then as 1). After that, all the “weights” are summed up, this is the essence of the so-called psychometric approach to risk, using its multidimensional definition. The multidimensional definition is qualitative nature, it is useful in identifying people's priorities in relation to a set of hazardous events or processes.
Danger and risk
Consider a simple example illustrating the difference between danger and risk. Driving a car is a danger, which can be expressed in terms of the proportion of deaths in car accidents in the total number of deaths recorded annually in a given country. For example, in the United States, the chance of the average American dying while driving is about 3% of the number of all kinds of deaths that occur there. Consequently, an American, sitting behind the wheel of his car, is in danger, and the risk here is not only that he may fall into the very three percent that the US statistical office will calculate by the end of this year. It is also necessary to take into account the damage associated with the emergency condition of the car, the losses of the insurance company, funeral expenses, moral damage to relatives, etc. Here, the risk acts as a quantitative measure that takes into account not only the likelihood of danger, but also the specific consequences of its manifestation.
Danger is a threat to people and everything that is of value to them. Danger is a probabilistic category that can change in space and time. The characteristic of the danger associated with a particular event or process should be understood as the probability of occurrence of this event or process in a given place and at a given time. The dangers of various events or processes are compared by averaging the probabilities of their manifestation in terms of spatial and temporal parameters.
In some cases, the spatial and temporal dependence of the probability of hazard manifestation can be considered separately from each other. Then, in accordance with the probability multiplication theorem, the probability of danger P can be represented as a product:
P = PS × PT , (1.1)
where PS and PT- respectively, the probability of danger, depending on the spatial and temporal characteristics.
In other cases, the danger manifests itself in certain circumstances, in the implementation of a combination of certain events. S 1, S 2, ... , sn. Then its probability can be expressed using the total probability formula:
P = (G /Si)× P (Si), (1.2)
where P (G /Si) - conditional probability of danger G, i.e., the probability that manifests itself under the condition of a certain event Si ; P (Si) is the probability of this event.
So, risk, unlike danger, cannot be considered in isolation from the possible consequences of the manifestation of this danger. Risk is a quantitative measure of danger, taking into account its consequences. The consequences of the manifestation of danger always bring damage, which can be economic, social, environmental, etc. Therefore, risk assessment should be linked to damage assessment. The greater the expected damage, the greater the risk. In addition, the risk will be greater, the greater the likelihood of the occurrence of the corresponding hazard. Therefore, the risk R can be defined as the product of the hazard probability of the event or process under consideration P by the magnitude of the expected consequences (damage) Q :
R = P · Q . (1.3)
Thus, the concept of "risk" combines two concepts - "probability of danger" and "damage".
Varieties of risk
In modern scientific literature, several types of risk are considered, each of which has its own characteristics. According to Rao Kolluru, there are five such varieties:
security risks (safetyrisks);
health risks (healthrisks);
risks that threaten the state of the environment (environmentalrisks);
risks that threaten public welfare (public welfare/goodwill risks);
financial risks (financial risks).
Security risks are usually characterized by low probability but severe consequences; they appear quickly, in particular, industrial accidents can be attributed to them. Risks that threaten health, on the contrary, have a fairly high probability and often do not have serious consequences, many of them appear with a certain delay. Rao Kolluru understands the risks of a threat to the state of the habitat as a countless number of effects, a myriad of interactions between populations, communities, ecosystems at the micro and macro levels, with very significant uncertainties both in the effects themselves and in their causes. Risks that threaten public welfare are due to how society perceives and evaluates the activity of a given facility (industrial, agricultural, military, etc.), to what extent this activity is related to the rational use of natural resources, how it affects the state of the environment; negative perception of the activity of the object under consideration manifests itself quickly and is stable. Financial risks are associated with possible loss of property or income, failure to receive an insurance premium or return on investments (including investments in environmental protection measures).
Apparently, the distribution of risks by the listed varieties is conditional. Very often, the risks associated with a threat to the state of the environment are at the same time risks for the life and health of people.
Vlasta Molak believes that six types of risk analysis have been formed so far, they have the following features.
Chemical risk analysis covers risks posed by non-carcinogenic chemicals. A characteristic feature of chemical risks is that they appear only when the dose of the toxicant exceeds a certain value, called the threshold. The purpose of this analysis is to find the values of the maximum permissible concentrations of toxic substances in water, air and soil, for which experiments conducted on animals serve.
Carcinogenic risk analysis considered separately from other types due to the importance and need for frequent use. The development of malignant tumors (cancerous tumors) can be caused by chemicals (carcinogens) or ionizing radiation. The carcinogenic effect of ionizing radiation is considered non-threshold. The analysis of carcinogenic risks is based on the use of probabilistic-statistical representations.
Epidemiological risk analysis It is designed to establish correlations (statistical dependencies) and causal relationships between the properties of risk sources and the number of induced diseases. This type of analysis is usually performed in the study of occupational diseases in humans, but due to lack of data, it allows extrapolation of the results obtained in the course of experiments with animals.
Probabilistic Risk Analysis is designed to ensure the safety of complex and potentially hazardous technological processes, historically the first type of risk analysis, after complex calculations of the probabilities of various accidents in nuclear power plant reactors carried out in the United States. An important feature of this type of analysis is the use of the so-called tree method, which takes into account all possible failures of equipment, technological units and large blocks, and each failure is characterized by its own probability. This allows not only calculating the probabilities of complex events, but also assessing their specific consequences (for example, the release of a certain toxicant or radionuclide into the atmosphere).
Post hoc risk analysis, which includes both natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, landslides, etc.) and hazardous human activities (traffic accidents, acute pesticide poisoning, cancer due to smoking, etc.). The term “a posteriori” means that this type of analysis uses the results of statistical processing of manifestations of hazardous events and processes in the past.
Qualitative risk analysis should be used in cases where a quantitative consideration of a hazardous event or process is practically impossible. For example, it is very difficult to quantify the risks posed by acid rain or global climate change.
All of the listed types of risk analysis are directly related to ecological risks, which should be understood as a combination of risks that threaten the health and life of people, and the risks of threatening the state of the environment
Features of environmental risk
The US Environmental Protection Agency treats environmental risks separately from health risks. According to the Agency's experts, in the early 1990s, the most serious environmental risks were the following:
global climate change;
depletion of the ozone layer in the stratosphere;
change in habitat components;
death of populations and loss of biological diversity.
The same experts identified the following health risks as the most serious:
air pollution (gases, aerosols);
accumulation of radioactive gas radon in the premises;
indoor air pollution;
contamination of drinking water;
the presence of chemical pollutants (toxicants) in the workplace;
soil and water pollution with pesticides;
depletion of the ozone layer in the stratosphere.
A comparison of these lists shows that the division of risks into environmental and health risks is conditional and ambiguous. It can be seen that in this case, the depletion of the ozone layer has to be included in both lists. The spread of pesticides has taken such proportions (their traces are found even in the tissues of penguins living in Antarctica) that the risk caused by pesticides should be considered not only a health risk, but also an environmental one. The same can be said about air and water pollution, which is everywhere.
When conducting sociological surveys aimed at identifying priorities in people's concern about the state of the environment, environmental risks are not separated from risks that threaten health. The results of such a survey carried out in 1990 in the United States are presented below in the form of a list ranked by importance of positions (the first 20 risks from a long list are listed; the percentage of respondents who classified the corresponding environmental risk as “very serious” is indicated in brackets).
1. Active hazardous waste disposal sites (67%).
2. Inactive (old) hazardous waste disposal sites (65%).
3. Water pollution by wastewater from industrial enterprises (63%).
4. Chemical toxicants in the workplace (63%).
5. Spills of oil and oil products (60%).
6. Destruction of the ozone layer (60%).
7. Accidents at nuclear power plants (60%).
8. Industrial accidents resulting in pollutant emissions (58%).
9. Radiation from radioactive waste (58%).
10. Air pollution from industrial enterprises (56%).
11. Leaks from underground storage of petroleum products (55%).
12. Pollution of coastal waters (54%).
13. Solid waste and garbage (53%).
14. Risk from pesticides for farmers (52%).
15. Water pollution by effluents from agricultural enterprises (51%).
16. Water pollution by wastewater treatment plants (50%).
17. Air pollution from vehicles (50%).
18. Residual pesticides in food (49%).
19. Greenhouse effect (48%).
20. Pollution of drinking water (46%).
Comparison of this list with the above opinions of experts shows that ordinary people and specialists differently assess the importance of a particular environmental risk. Thus, a public opinion poll did not reveal an increased concern about either global climate change, or the impact of radioactive gas (radon), or the reduction of biological diversity. Experts and non-specialists disagree about the severity of the risk posed by the ever-increasing number of hazardous waste landfills. Such differences are partly due to the difference in the knowledge of experts and ordinary people, however, special studies have revealed a number of other reasons. It turned out that the factors and mechanisms of risk perception, which are discussed in chapter 3 of this manual, are very significant.
In 1994, several international organizations - the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) - developed recommendations for risk assessment and management associated with threats to human health and the state of the environment as a result of the action of energy and industrial complexes. These recommendations include the main signs of environmental risks associated with threats to human health and life and the state of the environment, they are listed in Table. 1.1.
Table 1. The main signs of environmental risks associated with a threat to human health and the state of the environment
| Categories | For people | For the habitat |
| The nature of the source of risk | Continuous One-time (emergency) |
Continuous One-time (emergency) |
| Risk contingent (groups) | The population of this area Enterprise personnel |
|
| Duration of action | short-term Medium duration long |
short-term Medium duration long |
| Effects | By severity: fatal (risk of death), non-fatal (risk of injury, disease, etc.) By time of manifestation: immediate remote |
By distribution: Local Regional Global By duration: short-term medium duration long |
The table shows that environmental risks associated with a threat to human health and life, on the one hand, and a threat to the state of the environment, on the other, are characterized by both the same and different features. Both risks can come from sources of continuous or one-time action. Continuous sources include harmful emissions from stationary installations, as well as from transport systems. They should also include the results of the use of fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides in agriculture. The continuous suppliers of pollutants to the environment are places where industrial and domestic wastes are concentrated (rock dumps near coal mines, tailings of mining and metallurgical enterprises, city dumps, etc.). One-time sources are accidental releases of harmful substances as a result of explosions or other emergencies at industrial facilities, as well as serious traffic accidents during the transportation of toxic substances. Natural disasters (earthquakes and landslides, storms and hurricanes, floods and volcanic eruptions) can, of course, also be the causes of one-time emissions.
Regardless of the nature of the action of the source of danger, the result of its manifestation of the latter is the damage that is caused to both people and the environment. This requires simultaneous consideration of both types of environmental risk. At the same time, in many cases, environmental risks associated with a threat to human health and life must be considered separately from the risks caused by a threat to the state of the habitat.
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT
Humans have been managing risk for about four millennia. It is known that approximately 3900 years ago in ancient Mesopotamia property insurance was already carried out. King Hamurappi's code of law dating back to 1950 BC recorded the rules for issuing loans secured by a ship, which provided for an insured risk and payment of an appropriate amount in the event of a ship's sinking and loss of its cargo. This type of insurance was developed later in Ancient Greece. The first insurance policy that insured human life appeared much later - in 1583 in England.
The first legislative act aimed at reducing environmental risk can be considered the decree of the English king Edward I, signed by him more than seven hundred years ago, in 1285. This decree forbade the burning of so-called “soft” coal in kilns that served for firing and drying bricks, containing a lot of air pollutants.
For environmental risk management processes, the results of the study of its perception are important. The identified priorities in society's concern about the state of the environment should be taken into account when preparing the necessary environmental measures. Risk prevention or reduction should take into account not only quantitative but also qualitative characteristics of risk, which are determined by various factors and mechanisms of risk perception. Data from risk perception research is essential to adequate risk communication, so managers involved in the risk management process should be interested in expanding the use of such data.
In order to prevent or reduce risk, numerous and varied documents are developed, the scope of which may be limited to any one enterprise, or may extend to the whole country. Such documents include legislative acts and regulations aimed at protecting health, improving working conditions, reducing environmental pollution, ensuring road safety, standardizing the quality of goods sold, etc. The well-known “Ministry of Health Warns: Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health” on cigarette packs is an example of a simple risk-reduction measure.
In recent years, there has been a tendency to regulate environmental risk through legislation, and at the highest levels. Thus, in 1995, the US Congress decided that all future legislation in the field of health and environmental safety should be based on such scientific data, which, firstly, contain assessments of the relevant risks, and which, secondly, combine effective measures to reduce risks at reasonable costs.
Acceptable and negligible health risks
The use of risk parameters in legislation requires an accurate quantitative definition of two most important concepts - maximum tolerable risk and negligible(certainly acceptable) risk. A risk is recognized as negligible if its level, due to its smallness, cannot be reliably identified against the background of existing risks. In most countries of Western Europe, the individual risk to which the population (and not working personnel) is exposed is considered negligible if its level does not exceed 10-6 per year. The exception is the Netherlands, where a value of 10-6 per year is considered the maximum tolerable risk, and a negligible risk is fixed at 10-8 year-1. In the United States, an individual acceptable risk of 10-6 is set not for one year, but for the entire life of a person, the average duration of which is assumed to be 70 years. Therefore, the annual individual risk tolerance in the USA is 10-6/70 = 1.43×10-8 year-1.
It should be noted that the individual risk values given are theoretical. Practical values of acceptable individual risks can be much higher. For example, the US Supreme Court has set a lower limit significant individual risk due to the presence of carcinogens in the environment, equal to 1 10–3. Therefore, in this case, any individual risk less than 1 10–3 should be considered insignificant. According to the regulations of the US Environmental Agency, the acceptable (acceptable) risk from substances with carcinogenic properties lies in the range from 10–4 to 10–6.
The upper limit of acceptable risk (maximum acceptable risk) is different for the population and personnel working in hazardous conditions. In Russia, the maximum allowable individual risk for technogenic exposure of personnel is taken equal to 1.0 × 10-3 per year, and for the population - 5.0 × 10 Russian Federation is taken equal to 10-6 per year).
 |
Rice. 1. Individual risk of death referred to one year
(according to statistics from England).
The solid curve is for men, the dashed curve is for women. The horizontal lines indicate the average risk of death from: 1 - air pollution; 2 - transport accident; 3 - lightning strike. The shaded area between the acceptable levels ( BUT) and invalid ( B) risks.
On fig. Table 1 shows the levels of unacceptable (10–3) and acceptable (10–6) risks, along with the age dependence of the individual risk of death per one year of life.
This dependence reflects statistical data on the population of England, the values of unacceptable and acceptable risks are averaged by age and are considered to be the same for men and women. The same figure also shows levels of similarly averaged individual risks of death due to air pollution, traffic accidents and lightning strikes.
On fig. Figure 2 shows how the social risk limits set by the Dutch government depend on the number of possible casualties as a result of man-made accidents. Recall that social risk is expressed by the value f- related to one year the frequency of such accidents at one facility, the number of victims of which does not exceed the value N .
Rice. 2. Levels of maximum acceptable and negligible risks adopted in the Netherlands.
The graph refers to social risk, while the left vertical axis refers to individual risk; all values refer to the same year.
Tolerable risk values are used as criteria in the environmental risk management process. The purpose of this process is to reduce the level of risk to an acceptable level. Figure 3 shows the stages of the risk management process.
Rice. 3. Diagram of the risk management process
The risk management process is based on the results of quantitative risk assessment, which allows
compare alternative designs of potentially hazardous facilities and technologies
identify the most dangerous risk factors operating at a given facility
create databases and knowledge bases for expert systems to support technical decision making and development of regulatory documents
· identify priority areas for investments aimed at reducing risk and reducing hazards.
As follows from Fig. 3, the results of the risk assessment for the situation under consideration and the corresponding criteria are first compared. After this comparison, risk reduction options are found, each of which is evaluated taking into account the costs of its implementation. Evaluation of options is an iterative operation, it is repeated until the optimal solution is chosen.
Forecasting and modeling of emergency situations for the purpose of risk management
An essential step in the process of searching for risk reduction options (see Fig. 3) is the prediction of changes in the parameters of the existing situation and the modeling of the behavior of the object under consideration. Under scientific forecast understand a statement in the form of a probabilistic statement about the behavior of a certain system in the future, which depends on uncertain or unknown factors, made on the basis of studying and generalizing the experience of the past using intuitive ideas about the development of this system in the future. Scientific predictions are being made experts- experts in the field in question. Predictive expertise is based on a special scientific discipline - prognostication. Often, instead of the term “scientific forecast”, the term “expert assessments” is used.
The essence of the method of expert assessments is that specialists are asked to answer questions about the future behavior of objects or systems characterized by uncertain parameters or unexplored properties. Expert assessments are drawn up in the form of qualitative characteristics or quantitative values of the probabilities of the events or processes under consideration, related to a certain period of time. At the same time, great importance is attached to the formation of an evaluation scale used by experts. It has been established that the optimal evaluation scale should have a relatively small number of gradations (from 3 to 8), each gradation is assigned a certain probabilistic interval or some probability value. In addition, each gradation should be accompanied by a brief qualitative description (verbal or linguistic explanation).
Methods of expert assessments using probabilities form part of the probabilistic analysis of the safety of technological objects with hard-to-predict behavior due to unknown values of the factors that determine this behavior. A probabilistic safety analysis can cover dozens and hundreds of different scenarios (for example, when using the tree method), but it can also be limited to considering single events or processes.
Currently, there are several dozen methods of expert assessments, the most famous of them is collective discussion and agreement on the Delphi method. We can say that the creators of the method of expert assessments were the Delphic oracles, that is, the priests of the temple of Apollo at the foot of Mount Parnassus in Greece. Their prediction about this or that event in ancient Greece was communicated to the people only after all the members of the council of sages got acquainted with all the circumstances of the case and discussed them from all sides.
The adoption of expert decisions by the Delphi method is carried out in the following order:
1. Formation of a group of experts - major experts in the field in which the problem is located.
2. Primary filling by experts of prepared questionnaires, accompanied by the provision of all available information on the problem (first round);
3. Processing of questionnaires and a written statement of its main results.
4. Familiarization of experts with the results of processing questionnaires and re-filling similar sheets (second round) with an indication that new answers should be given to the same questions, taking into account the results of the first round. There may be two or more such rounds, depending on the degree of agreement between the answers.
The Delphi method was used, in particular, in the analysis of possible violations of the integrity of containers in the radioactive waste storage facility at the Hanford Nuclear Center in the USA. Each of the numerous scenarios for the occurrence of an emergency during a given time interval, the experts characterized one of three gradations of the assessment scale with the corresponding interval values of the probability of this situation occurring:
2. “Very unlikely” (very unlikely): 10–4< P< 10–2.
3. “Extremely unlikely” (extremely unlikely): P < 10–4.
More detailed is the rating scale proposed by Hunter and presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Relationship between quantitative characteristics
the possibility of an event and the values of the corresponding probability (Hunter scale)
| Qualitative characteristic of the possibility of an event | Probability |
The event is certain or the hypothesis about it can be considered highly plausible The event hypothesis seems implausible, but it cannot be ruled out The event will probably not happen - according to the available data, it should be considered improbable, but these data are doubtful Event data is reliable, but the hypothesis that it will occur is highly implausible The event hypothesis is highly implausible The event is physically possible, but it almost certainly won't happen. Given all the available data, the event must be considered physically impossible. |
Thus, the method of expert assessments is used to solve problems related to risk management (for example, planning systems for ensuring the technological, environmental and social safety of a certain object) in cases where a rigorous calculation is impossible due to the presence of fundamental uncertainties. Below are examples of its specific use in combination with another method called the tree method. This method is widely used in making risk-related decisions. Among its advantages are the convenience and clarity of the graphical representation, as well as a significant simplification of calculations on computers. The tree method is especially effective in cases where a complex problem can be divided into one or another number of relatively simple problems, each of which is solved separately, after which a kind of synthesis of a complex solution is performed. In the process of forecasting emergency situations and their modeling, the use of the tree method allows you to calculate the probability of a certain scenario that includes several events. The structure of the tree is based on the basic theorems of probability theory - the addition theorem and the multiplication theorem.
The first example is related to the simulation of an accident on the main gas pipeline (MGP), which can lead to a specific emergency (ES) - the release of gas into the atmosphere and its consequences. The employees of the VNIIGAZ Institute developed a probabilistic model of such an accident, which is a tree of scenarios for the development of an emergency, taking into account its possible consequences (see Fig. 4.). A group of experts assessed the probability of individual events that form the considered tree. The probability of occurrence of a simulated emergency is conditionally taken equal to one. Expert evaluation of the probabilities of the consequences was carried out by pairwise consideration of each branch on the tree. For each pair of sets of events (processes), a conditional probability was determined, and each such pair was considered as a complete group of events, so the sum of the corresponding conditional probabilities was equal to one. Thus, the branching into “one-way outflow” and “two-way outflow” was characterized by conditional probabilities equal to 0.78 and 0.22, respectively. The probability of a chain of events occurring is determined by multiplying the probabilities of the events that make up this chain. Thus, the probability that the gas release will be characterized by a one-sided outflow, and in this case, ignition and explosion will occur, is determined by the product of 0.78 × 0.40 × 0.66 and is equal to 0.21.
Rice. 4. Tree of scenarios for the development of an emergency (ES) - rupture of the main gas pipeline (MGP) with a gas release and the consequences (probabilistic model)
The role of the human factor in risk assessments and in its management
In the process of quantitative risk assessment and management, significant difficulties are caused by the presence of uncertainties in the reliability characteristics of personnel employed at potentially hazardous facilities. Man-made disasters such as the explosion of a nuclear reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant or the leakage of toxic gases at a pesticide production plant in Bhopal (India) have shown that it is not possible to solve the problem of risk reduction using purely engineering, technological or organizational methods. To a large extent, this is due to the fact that in such emergency situations, unforeseen scenarios of the development of events arise in which the response of the personnel is inadequate, as a result of which erroneous actions are taken. A US analysis of about 30,000 incidents at nuclear power facilities showed that about half of them involved a unique combination of technological failures and human errors. The expansion of the scope of automated tools leads to new problems, as new types of failures and errors appear. Computerization leads to dangerous bugs associated with software. In addition, under these conditions, the whole complex of relations between a person, on the one hand, and a machine or computer, on the other, changes in an unpredictable way. Studies carried out in economically developed countries indicate the need for a comprehensive study of the role human factor in technologies associated with risk and at potentially hazardous facilities.
Over the past two decades, the methods for quantifying human reliability have evolved significantly, now differing sharply from the approaches traditionally used in calculating equipment reliability indicators. To study the human factor, special technical means are created - complexes simulating the interaction of a person with a machine, simulation installations and research simulators. They are used for a comprehensive study of the actions of personnel, analysis of the strategy of the behavior of operators, and identification of basic errors. One of the directions of studying the role of the human factor is to identify the causes of erroneous actions of people serving complex technological installations. To determine the characteristics of errors of various natures, psychologists develop their classification. One of these classifications was proposed in 1990 by Rizon in his book "Human Errors", it is presented in fig. 6.
Fig.6. Classification of the causes of dangerous actions of personnel that can lead to man-made emergencies (according to Rizon)
The above classification is used in modeling human-machine interaction. The scheme in fig. 6. shows that all dangerous actions that can cause a man-made emergency or disaster can be divided into unintentional and intentional. The first of them, in turn, are divided into misses and omissions, and the second - into oversights and violations. Misses are caused by lack of attention (for example, the order of performing two consecutive operations is confused), while omissions are caused by memory deficiencies (for example, the operator forgot about one link in the chain of necessary operations). The causes of oversights may be the incorrect implementation of existing rules (for example, incorrect implementation of a rule that is necessary in a given situation, or acting on a rule that does not apply at all in the current situation) or insufficient knowledge about actions in both normal and abnormal situations. Violations are conscious actions leading to deviations from the normal functioning of the object.
Human factor modeling has become an integral part of the probabilistic safety analysis (PSA) of potentially hazardous facilities. This part of the PSA is the most complex; it allows only relatively simple human errors to be taken into account. A serious problem is the accounting of personnel actions in stressful conditions of an accident with an inevitable shortage of time. Complex errors, the number of which can be very large, are very difficult to model, and multiple errors (like those made at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant) are almost impossible to analyze at all.
Despite the creation of modern models that allow, within certain limits, to describe the interaction of the operator with the machine, the problems caused by the role of the human factor are still far from being solved. The urgency of these problems has led to the emergence of a new branch of knowledge - safety culture. The term "safety culture" was introduced in 1986 by the experts of the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (IANS) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the final document on the consideration of the causes and consequences of the Chernobyl accident. In the IAEA INSAG's subsequent document "Guidelines for the Safety of Nuclear Power Plants", published in 1990, safety culture was characterized as a "fundamental management principle". According to the definition adopted by the IAEA, safety culture is such a set of characteristics and characteristics of the activities of organizations and individuals that establishes that the safety of a nuclear facility, as having the highest priority, is given the attention determined by their significance. Subsequently, the definition of safety culture was extended to include any potentially hazardous facilities and high-risk technologies. Thus, as defined by Merritt-Helmreich (1996), a safety culture is more than just a group of individuals who follow a set of rules for the safe conduct of work; it is a group of such people who in their behavior are guided by a common belief in the importance of ensuring security and understand the need for each member of the collective to support the norms of collective security and help other members of the collective to strive for this common goal.
The price of risk and the principle of optimizing options its reduction
It is believed that socio-economic damage Y, due to human exposure to hazardous substances present in the environment, is directly proportional to the risk of a threat to health R :
Y= a R , (1)
where a is the proportionality factor, called at the cost of risk. Risk R It is measured by the number of deaths per 1 million people living in a lifetime (70 years) in conditions of a given risk, or by the number of years of reduction in life expectancy.
The price of risk a is determined by the amount of money per additional death or - per person-year of reduced life expectancy. Using the price of risk allows us to move to monetary indicators, that is, to express the socio-economic damage that determines the losses of society due to damage to health, in monetary units.
The average total risk of death for the population of developed countries is considered to be approximately 10-2 year-1. A significant proportion (about 10%) of this value is the contribution of technogenic factors (environment pollution). In foreign publications, the price of risk is often normalized to a unit of social risk equal to 1, and is called the price of life (more precisely, one average life). To date, the following concepts for measuring the value of human life have been formed:
assessment from the standpoint of the theory of human capital (“human capital” approach);
· indirect evaluation, taking into account non-monetary social costs;
assessment of the willingness of individuals to pay for the elimination of the risk of death;
Evaluation based on the determination of insurance premiums and compensations in court;
· Evaluation of the society's investments aimed at reducing the risk of premature death of an individual.
None of these concepts can be considered perfect and can not serve as a working tool. Let us briefly consider the essence of the concept of using the theory of human capital. This concept is based on the assumption that the degree of usefulness of an individual to society depends mainly on his productivity, since in this theory each individual is considered from the point of view of his ability to participate in the process of social production and earn money in the process. The loss of life, according to this theory, leads to a decrease in the productive potential of society, which should manifest itself in the near future. As a measure of the cost of living, it is proposed to use the total wages of a person that he did not receive due to premature death. Therefore, the approach under consideration is also called the concept of the ability of an individual to earn money intended for him for a lifetime (“lifetime earning power of the individual” concept) or simply the concept of the upcoming salary (“foregone ear-nings” approach). The theory of human capital promised simple quantitative assessments of life, so at first it received relatively wide circulation. However, it soon became clear that significant difficulties arose in the way of its application.
First, it turned out to be necessary to clarify who is primarily harmed by the premature death of a given person - either this person, or members of his family, or the society of which this person and his family are members. In other words, we are talking about the priority of the results of an individual's work, about the ratio of the micro-level (increasing the well-being of the family) and the macro-level (development of society), on which these results are recorded. To clarify the situation, “net” and “gross” assessments of life were introduced - the first of them takes into account only the damage caused to society, and the second takes into account the total damage. Both types of damage, of course, depend on the size of the wages of the departing worker.
Secondly, the use of both “net” and “gross” estimates of life has caused additional difficulties due to the underemployment of the population, which is typical for a number of industrialized countries, and the operation of the social protection system in these countries. The loss of a worker's life creates a vacancy in the labor market, the filling of which leads to a reduction by one unit in the number of people receiving unemployment benefits. The latter means a reduction in the cost to society of benefits and should therefore be considered a positive effect of the loss of a worker, accompanying the clearly negative direct effect of this loss. Algebraic quantities must be used to correct the estimates being made.
Thirdly, critics of the concept of evaluation from the standpoint of the theory of human capital point to its discriminatory nature in relation to the age of the worker. Indeed, this concept gives more weight to an industrial accident that caused the death of a young worker than to an incurable occupational disease of an older worker working in similar conditions. It follows that the life of a young worker should be valued higher.
Fourthly, the approach under consideration puts people who receive different pay for their work in unequal conditions - this leads to an underestimation of the life of the poor strata of society. On the contrary, the lives of people who are classified as ultra-highly paid are overvalued.
Despite the shortcomings of existing theories, estimates of one average life in a market economy are necessary. Depending on the various estimation methods, the values obtained and published fall within a wide range of values. For the United States and the countries of the European Community, this range is from 0.5 to 7 million dollars. The value often used as an average (median) is $3.2 million for a statistical life (70 years), or about $45,000 per person-year.
Monetary assessment of one average life is used in estimating the costs of measures to reduce environmental risk, focused precisely on saving a certain number of human lives. Such estimates were made in the USA based on the analysis of a rather large amount of initial data. In table. 2 shows estimates of the annual costs of conservation one average life as a result of environmental measures aimed at improving the quality of the environment (measures are being considered to reduce the content of toxicants and radiation sources in the biosphere).
Table 2. Estimates of costs for some environmental activities in order to save one human life per year (according to T. Tengsu et al.)
| Events | Expenses (in USD) |
Chlorination of drinking water Control of air pollution from coal-fired thermal power plants Reducing the concentration of radon in residential premises Prohibition of the use of formaldehyde for thermal insulation of buildings Control of benzene emissions in the pharmaceutical industry Control of ionizing radiation in uranium mines Prohibition of the use of asbestos in building construction Reduction of arsenic emissions in glass factories Reducing Dioxin Emissions in the Pulp and Paper Industry Reducing Arsenic Emissions from Copper Smelters |
from 6.1 to 140 thousand from 11 to 220 thousand from 79 thousand to 3.9 million from 550 thousand to 5.2 million from 2.3 to 51 million from 4.5 to 7.5 million from 36 thousand to 890 million |
The data in the table show a significant scatter of values with the manifestation of both intragroup and intergroup dispersion. At the same time, an inverse correlation is clearly expressed between the magnitude of risk and the cost of reducing it. For example, the costs of reducing arsenic emissions from copper smelting are small in enterprises with a relatively high level of environmental pollution with this element, and, on the contrary, increase by more than ten thousand times if this level is relatively low. Applying the median yields the following year-averaged estimate of the cost per year of saving one life in the United States as a result of various environmental activities: $4.2 million. This is about 200 times more than the average costs associated with the implementation of medical interventions to save one average life in the United States. Involving median values allows us to make average estimates of the cost to save one life per year for activities aimed at reducing domestic injuries ($36,000), improving vehicle safety ($56,000) and reducing the level of occupational diseases ($350,000) . The data reviewed show that reducing environmental risk is costly. This emphasizes the need to take early action to preserve the state of the habitat and prevent the environmental risk associated with the planned commissioning of potentially hazardous facilities.
In the risk management process, it is important to optimize safety and risk, which boils down to finding the extremum of a certain function. This function is called the target function, it characterizes the economic effect obtained, on the one hand, under certain restrictions imposed by security requirements, and on the other hand, by using additional risk management techniques.
One of the main economic methods used in the process of managing the risk of threat to health from technogenic factors is the analysis of costs and resulting benefits ( analysis “cost-benefit”). The essence of this method is as follows. First, all options (scenarios) of possible actions and measures to reduce the risk are considered. For everybody i-th scenario ( i = 1, 2, …, n) costs are calculated Wi for its implementation and the planned benefit Vi. In addition, for each scenario, the values of the so-called residual risk are estimated. Ri, which will lead to the implementation i th scenario. Net economic effect Ei for each scenario is determined by the difference between benefits and costs:
E i = Vi - Wi . (2)
Expenses Wi for the implementation of measures for i-th scenario are calculated as the present value of the implementation of these activities (project), averaged over the economic life of the project:
(3)
where t- project lifetime Сj and DJ- capital and operating costs, respectively, rj- average annual interest rate j th year.
When making costs at the end of the year, the summation in this formula should be carried out from j= 1 to j = t .
Benefit from implementation i The th scenario can be defined in various ways; there is no unified method for assessing benefits. The most common is the method of assessing benefits through the prevented socio-economic damage. To do this, you must first calculate the residual socio-economic damage after the implementation i th scenario.
Residual economic damage Yi is determined by the product of the cost of risk and residual risk (recall that the risk in this case is measured by the number of deaths per 1 million people living under the conditions of this risk throughout their lives, or by the number of years of reduction in life expectancy). The residual average annual reduced socio-economic damage is calculated by the formula:
where a j- risk cost for j- th year Ri i- residual risk j- year for i th scenario.
Benefit as averted damage is estimated as follows. If a Y o is the socio-economic damage that existed before taking any action on possible scenarios, and Yi- residual socio-economic damage after implementation i-th scenario, then the prevented damage D Yi is determined by the difference:
D Yi = Y o- Yi . (5)
This difference is used as a measure of the benefit from the implementation i th scenario:
Vi= D Yi . (6)
Net economic effect Ei is defined by the expression:
E i = D Yi - Wi = Y o-( Yi + Wi). (7)
Sum ( Yi + Wi) are called generalized reduced costs. Formula (7) shows that the net economic effect will be maximum with a minimum of generalized reduced costs:
max E i ® min (Yi + Wi). (8)
The resulting ratio reflects the essence optimization principle options (scenarios) for risk reduction.
The general principles of criteria establishing risk acceptability are most fully developed to protect people from exposure to ionizing radiation (radiation risk). The concept of the predominance of benefits over costs is the first general principle of radiation protection and the development of criteria for acceptable radiation risk. For brevity, it is called the principle of justification, it requires calculations of costs and expected benefits in each specific case. The application of the principle of justification is intended to assess the preconditions necessary for the implementation of the activity in question.
The manner in which a justified and planned activity is carried out is the subject of the second general principle of radiation protection and the definition of acceptable risk criteria. It is called the principle of optimization and consists in finding the minimum costs that society can incur in order to implement this type of activity. In the case of radiation risk, the minimum costs are obtained by summing up two terms: the cost of harm to human health that can be caused by exposure to radiation at a given level of radiation protection, and the costs of this protection. Obviously, such harm is malignant neoplasms and genetic diseases. It can be assumed, as the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) does, that there is a direct relationship (linear relationship) between the dose received and the likelihood of malignant tumors and hereditary disorders. Then the cost of compensation for the expected harm to health (this cost can be called the “cost of health”) will be expressed as a certain function of the collective dose, which is made up of those individual doses that individuals will receive as a result of the implementation of the considered type of activity.
The principle of optimization makes it possible to gain confidence that this activity will be put into practice at a sufficiently low and optimal level of exposure. At this level, any additional dose reduction (expressed as a collective dose) would not be justified in terms of the new costs required for such a reduction. In the scientific literature, instead of the term “optimization principle”, another term is sometimes used - the so-called ALARA principle. Its origin is associated with the wording “as low as reasonably achievable”, the first letters of these words form the abbreviation ALARA. The wording itself is included in the criterion developed by the ICRP, which states that in any situation, radiation doses should be kept as low as can reasonably be achieved, taking into account economic and social factors.
On fig. 7 shows three dependences on the collective dose, marked with indices BUT , AT and BUT +AT. Straight BUT shows the dependence of the cost of health on the collective dose, as mentioned above, this dependence is linear. Curve AT characterizes the dependence of the costs of radiation protection (ie risk reduction) on the magnitude of the collective dose. The costs of radiation protection are very high when the collective doses are small and become smaller when large acceptable doses are allowed.
Rice. 7. Dependence of the price of health (direct BUT), costs for radiation
protection (curve AT) and total costs ( BUT + AT) on the value of the collective dose
As shown in fig. 7, total curve BUT +AT has a single minimum, which corresponds to the optimal values of the cost of health and the cost of radiation protection (risk reduction). In establishing this minimum, the algorithm for the practical application of the ALARA principle lies. It is easy to see that shown in Fig. 7, the minimum corresponds to the results of the “cost-benefit” analysis discussed above, according to which the purely economic effect reaches a maximum when the generalized reduced costs are minimized.
Of course, optimization calculations cannot be considered universal. They must be carried out on a case-by-case basis and under specific country-specific conditions. straight slope BUT and curve shape AT will not be the same in different situations and areas of work with radiation. The most difficult stage of optimization calculations is the determination of the slope of the straight line BUT. Difficulties here are caused by the need to establish the monetary equivalent of a unit of the collective dose of radiation, which corresponds to a certain probability of the occurrence of malignant neoplasms and hereditary diseases.
The described approach to the optimization procedure takes into account the state of health of the whole society as a whole, i.e. the aim is to provide collective protection against risk, but not protection of individual individuals. Conditions may arise in which the optimal collective dose includes rather large individual doses as separate terms. In such cases, it is necessary to protect the individuals most at risk of exposure. The prevention of exposure of individuals to excessively high doses is the content of the third principle of radiation protection and acceptable risk criteria, it is called the principle of limiting individual doses.
The recommendations of the ICRP on the observance of the formulated principle are as follows. Such radiation doses can be considered safe and acceptable, at which the probability of the formation of malignant neoplasms and genetic defects is close to the similar probability associated with exposure to natural background radiation. Higher acceptable dose limits are recommended for professional workers than for the general population, as the acceptable level of occupational risk is higher than the acceptable risk in ordinary life. In practice, the principle of limiting individual doses is carried out in the following form. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has established a maximum individual dose of radiation that can be received by any person as a result of the normal operation of a nuclear power plant. This dose should not exceed 0.05 mSv per year, and the term “any” means that the indicated value should not depend on where the person lives - close to the station or far away. A dose of 0.05 mSv/year is less than 2% of the purely natural radiation background. In Russia, in 1996, individual dose limits were introduced, according to which the effective equivalent dose established for the population and due to all radiation sources should not exceed 1 mSv/year.
The three principles considered are of general importance and are applicable at different levels of radiation protection. Moreover, they are also useful in the evaluation of protective measures in the event of similar hazardous situations not related to protection against ionizing radiation.
Prioritization of environmental risks
According to modern requirements, the developed programs to reduce environmental risks should provide for carefully verified estimates of the necessary costs. At the same time, it is necessary to determine priority areas for spending funds. The criteria for choosing priorities may be different. For example, the US Budget Act for 1996 allocated $6.5 billion to the Department of Energy for spending on improving the environment, with the lion's share of this amount - $5.1 billion - intended for measures to reduce environmental risk. In substantiating its financial needs, the Department of Energy presented qualitative criteria for assessing environmental risks, categorizing them as high, medium, and low.
At present, the point of view is becoming more widespread, according to which it is necessary to use quantitative criteria for identifying priorities. The latter means that risk management is carried out according to a scheme that takes into account the categories of both of its components - the probability of a hazardous event P and its consequences Q. To do this, a number of categories of probability and consequences are considered, and a certain rating is assigned to each category.
On fig. 8 in the form of a square table presents five categories of probability of an event and five categories of consequences caused by this event. First, the probability and consequences of a given hazardous event are divided into five categories, each of which is characterized by the following qualitative characteristics: minimum, low, medium, high and maximum. These categories are then assigned ratings from 1 to 5. Risk Scores R like works PQ are also subdivided conditionally into five categories, for example, as follows:
maximum risk R=PQ> 20,
high risk 15< R< 20,
medium risk 10< R< 15,
low risk 5< R< 10,
minimal risk R< 5.
In this view, the maximum and high risks are usually considered unacceptable, medium and low risks are considered limitedly acceptable, and the minimum risk is considered unconditionally acceptable. In accordance with this, in Fig. 8, the areas of unacceptable, limitedly acceptable and unconditionally acceptable risks are highlighted graphically.
The value of the considered scheme lies in the fact that, depending on the magnitude of the risks, they can be prioritized, that is, placed in order. This is necessary to establish the sequence of environmental measures and the appropriate distribution of funds for their implementation (investments).
Rice. 8. Table of hazardous event probability categories P and its consequences Q. The areas of unacceptable (dark shading), limitedly acceptable (light shading) and unconditionally acceptable risks are highlighted
The considered principle is used, in particular, by the US Department of Defense to prioritize environmental projects and optimize the costs of environmental protection measures. An example is the methodology used at bases and in units of the US Air Force. This methodology uses a table of coefficients for quantitative assessments of environmental risks, which considers five categories of the probability of an event and four categories of its consequences (Table 3).
It can be seen that the rows of the table characterize the categories of the severity of the consequences of adverse events, and its columns assign quantitative estimates (quantify) to the category of probability (frequency) of such events. The US Air Force regulations provide explanations for both types of these categories, which boil down to the following.
 |
Table 3. Assessment of environmental risks in US Air Force units
Catastrophic consequences are those that are characterized by a complete disruption of the operation of the facility, the complete failure of its systems, material losses in the amount of more than $ 1 million, the presence of deaths or serious injuries to personnel, or irreversible damage to the environment, accompanied by violation of environmental legislation. Critical are the consequences, characterized by a significant violation of the functions of the object, failure of the main components of its systems, material losses in the amount of more than 200 thousand, but less than 1 million dollars, the appearance of permanent disability, severe injuries or occupational diseases in at least three people from the staff , or reversible damage to the environment that caused a violation of environmental legislation. Insignificant (marginal) consequences are those characterized by an insignificant disruption in the functioning of the object, insignificant damage to its systems, material losses in the amount of more than 10 thousand, but less than 200 thousand dollars, the appearance of minor injuries or occupational diseases that caused the loss of one working day, or caused to the environment habitation with reparable damage that is not accompanied by a violation of environmental legislation. The consequences are considered negligible if they are characterized by a very slight violation of the functions of the object, insignificant damage to its systems, material losses in the amount of more than 2 thousand, but less than 10 thousand dollars, the appearance of such minor injuries or occupational diseases that did not lead to the loss of even one working day, or caused to the environment by minimal reparable damage that is not accompanied by a violation of environmental legislation.
Table 4. Qualitative and quantitative signs of categories of probability (frequency) of environmentally unfavorable events used in the US Air Force
 |
After a quantitative assessment of a particular environmental risk, it is recommended to make a qualitative conclusion about its level, for which the US Air Force uses the following table (Table 5).
Table 5. Correlation between quantitative and qualitative environmental risk assessments used in US Air Force units
For example, an exceptionally high level of risk may be identified for the catastrophic consequences of a likely event (factor 2) or for the critical consequences of a frequent event (factor 3).
The methodology for prioritizing environmental projects adopted by the US Air Force has only recently begun to be put into practice, but it has already managed to prove itself on the positive side. In the United States, it is set as an example to other departments that are faced with the task of developing legal documents designed to regulate environmental activities.
Environmental legislation and standards - environmental risk management tools
Environmental risk management is carried out through the development and application of regulatory legal acts that establish environmental and legal responsibility. In Russia (more precisely, in the former USSR), the concept of environmental and legal liability was first formulated in the Law of the RSFSR "On Enterprises and Entrepreneurial Activities", which provided for compensation for damage from pollution and irrational use of the natural environment. Then this provision was developed in the special Law of the RSFSR "On the Protection of the Environment", which, in particular, established three types of damage subject to compensation:
damage caused to the environment by a source of increased danger;
damage caused to the health of citizens by adverse effects on the environment;
Damage caused to the property of citizens.
Adopted in 1997, the Law of the Russian Federation "On the Industrial Safety of Hazardous Production Facilities" provides that an enterprise that is a source of increased danger is obliged to ensure measures to protect the population and the environment from hazardous impacts. This law also introduces a procedure for licensing hazardous industries and considers the possibility of revoking or suspending a license in case of non-compliance with industrial safety requirements or non-compliance with accepted standards. In addition, for the first time in Russia, this law introduced compulsory environmental insurance, which is liability insurance for harm (for example, accidental environmental pollution) during the operation of a hazardous production facility. The minimum amount of insurance liability of enterprises is determined depending on the level of danger of production. The law determines that for the most dangerous production facilities the amount of the insurance amount cannot be less than 70,000 minimum wages (minimum wages) established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on the day the insurance contract is concluded. Environmental insurance should be considered an important part of the environmental risk management mechanism.
Environmental risk management is directly related to environmental management. The concept of “environmental management system” was first defined and introduced in a special UK standard BS 7750 (Environmental Management Systems) in 1992. A few years later, international standards appeared that set recommendations for managing the quality of the environment, they made up the so-called ISO 14000 series. ISO 14000 includes the following standards:
· ISO 14001 - Environmental Management Systems. Requirements and guidance for use (Environmental management systems - Specification with guidance for use).
· ISO 14004 - Environmental Management Systems. General guidelines on principles, systems and supporting techniques (Environmental management systems - General guidelines on principles, systems and supporting techniques).
· ISO 14010 - Guidelines for environmental auditing. Basic principles (Guidelines for environ-mental auditing - General principles).
· ISO 14011 - Guidelines for environmental auditing. audit procedures. Conducting an audit for environmental management systems (Guide-lines for environmental auditing - Audit procedures - Auditing of environmental management systems).
· ISO 14012 - Guidelines for environmental auditing. Qualification criteria for environmental auditors (Guidelines for environmental auditing - Qualification criteria for environmental auditors).
· ISO 14020 - Environmental terms and language. Basic principles (Environmental labels and declarations - General principles).
· ISO 14031 - Environmental management. Assessment of the state of ecosystems. Draft guidelines (Environmental management - Environmental performance evaluation - Guidelines (a draft).
· ISO 14040 - Environmental management. Life cycle assessment (of products). Principles and scope (Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework.)
· ISO 14041 - Environmental management. Life cycle assessment (of products). Determination of the purpose and aspects of inventory analysis (Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis).
· ISO 14050 - Environmental management. Glossary of terms (Environmental management-Vocabulary).
The ISO 14000 series of standards contains important definitions and fundamental provisions, some of which are given below.
environmental goal- the overall environmentally significant goal of the organization's activities, established by its environmental policy; the extent to which the objective has been achieved is assessed where practicable (ISO 14001. Definitions. 3.7. Environmental objective).
Environmental challenge (task of ecological activity) - a detailed requirement for the environmental performance of the organization as a whole or its divisions, which follows from the established environmental goal of the organization's activities and must be met in order to achieve this goal (ISO 14001. Definitions. 3.11. Environmental target).
The organization should establish a procedure identification of environmental aspects and perform it in respect of all activities, products and services over which it can exercise control and over which it can influence. These procedures are necessary in order to determine those most significant environmental aspects of activities, products or services that can have a significant impact on the environment (ISO 14001. 4.3.1. Environmental aspects). The organization shall ensure that all significant environmental aspects (i.e. those with a likely significant impact on the environment) are taken into account when setting environmental objectives. This information should be up-to-date (reflect the real situation) and be constantly updated (ISO 14001. 4.3.1. Environmental aspects).
The organization should design, implement and develop environmental management program(s) to achieve environmental goals and solve problems. The programs include the distribution of responsibility for achieving goals and solving problems at all levels of the organization, as well as the necessary funds and time periods during which the goals must be achieved (ISO 14001. 4.3.4. Environmental management program). Environmental management programs help an organization improve its environmental performance. They should be dynamic, regularly reviewed and reflect changing goals and objectives of the organization (ISO 14004. 4.2.6. Environmental management program).
Environmental management system- part of the overall management system, including the organizational structure, activity planning, distribution of responsibilities, practical work, as well as procedures, processes and resources for the development, implementation, evaluation of the achieved results of the implementation and improvement of environmental policy, goals and objectives (ISO 14001. Environmental management systems - Specification with guidance for use. Definitions. 3.5. Environmental management system).
Consistent improvement- the process of developing an environmental management system aimed at achieving the best performance in all environmental aspects of the enterprise, where this is practically achievable in accordance with its environmental policy (ISO 14001. Definitions. 3.1. Continual improvement).
The ISO 14000 series of standards contains a list of recommended procedures, the planning and implementation of which by a given organization or enterprise should ensure environmental safety. This list includes the following activities:
Identification of environmental aspects of the enterprise;
· identification of legislative and regulatory acts, as well as other documents that determine the environmental requirements for the activities of the enterprise, and providing access to them;
· training;
exchange of information (communications);
· creation of a system of own environmental management documents and control over it;
control over compliance with environmental requirements at the workplace (industrial environmental control);
forecasting potential emergencies and determining the necessary actions of personnel in these situations;
monitoring and measurement of environmental performance of the enterprise;
assessment of compliance of actual environmental indicators with established requirements;
· determination of the rights and obligations of persons involved in environmental management, and their responsibility in identifying non-compliance of environmental indicators with established requirements and standards;
· conducting audits of the environmental management system.
The ISO 14000 series of standards have served as the basis for standards in the field environmental management adopted in the Russian Federation:
· GOST R ISO 14001–98. Environmental management systems. Requirements and guidance for use.
· GOST R ISO 14004–98. Environmental management systems. General guidance on principles, systems and means of ensuring operation.
· GOST R ISO 14010–98. Guidelines for environmental auditing. Basic principles.
· GOST R ISO 14011–98. Guidelines for environmental auditing. audit procedures. Conducting audits for environmental management systems.
· GOST R ISO 14012–98. Guidelines for environmental auditing. Qualification criteria for environmental auditors.
REFERENCE INDEX
1. Ananiev G.S. Methodology for studying catastrophic processes of relief formation and issues of ecological and geomorphological risk // Review of mapping natural hazards and natural disasters. Moscow, 1992, pp. 54–59.
2. Bakhireva L.V., Osipov V.I., Koff G.L., Rodina E.E. Geological and geochemical risk as a criterion for geoecological regulation of territories // History of interaction between society and nature: facts and concepts. Tez. report Ch. 1. M., 1990. S. 98–102.
3. Bykov A.A., Solenova L.G., Zemlyanaya G.M., Furman V.D. Guidelines for the analysis and management of the risk of impact on the health of the population of harmful environmental factors. M., 1999. 70 p.
4. Vaganov P.A. The risk of death and the price of life // Jurisprudence. 1999. N3. pp. 67–82.
5. Vaganov P.A. Nuclear risk. SPb., 1997. 112 p.
6. Dzektser E.S. Methodological aspects of the problem of geological hazard and risk // Geoecology. 1994. No. 3. S. 41–47.
7. Kurylenko V.V. Fundamentals of management of nature and subsoil use. Environmental management. SPb., 2000. 206 p.
8. Radiation. Doses, effects, risk. Per. from English. M., 1988. 79 p.
9. Sheko A.I., Krupoderov V.S. Estimation of danger and risk of exogenous geological processes // Geoecology. 1994. No. 3. S. 53–59.
10. Bartell S.M. Ecological/Environmental Risk Assessment // Risk Assessment and Management Handbook. New York, 1996. P. 10.3–10.59.
11. Beck U. risk society. Towards a New Modernity. London, 1992. 298 p.
12. Chicken J.C. risk handbook. London, 1996.310 p.
13. Chicken J.C., Harbison S.A. Differences Between Industries in the Definition of Acceptable Risk // New Risks. New York, 1990, pp. 123–128.
14. Cohen B.L. Catalog of Risks Extended and Updated // Health Physics. 1991 Vol. 61. P. 89–96.
15. Cohen B.L. The Nuclear Energy Option. An Alternative for the 90s. New York, 1990. 320 p.
16. With ovello V.T. Communications Risk in Crisis and Noncrisis Situations // Risk Assessment and Management Handbook. For Environmental, Health, and Safety Professionals. New York, 1996, pp. 45–65.
17. Covello V.T., Sandman P.T., Slovic P. Guidelines for Communicating Information about Chemical Risks Effectively and Responsibly // Acceptable Evidence. Science and Values in Risk Management. New York, 1991, pp. 66–90.
18. Dzuray E.J, Maranto A.R. Assessing the Status of Risk-Based Approaches for the Prioritization of Federal Environmental Spending // Federal Facilities Environmental J. 1999. N 5.
19. Environmental Encyclopedia. Detroit, 1994. 110 p.
20. Goedkoop M. The Eco-indicator 95. Final Report. Utrecht, The Netherlands. 1995.
21. Goedkoop M., Spriensma R. The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. methodology report. Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2000.
22. Hallenbeck W.H. Quantitative Risk Assessment for Environmental and Occupational Health. Boca-Raton, 1993. 212 p.
23. Kasperson R.E., Renn O., Slovic P. et al. The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework // Risk Analysis. 1988 Vol. 8. No. 2. P. 177–187.
24. Kolluru R.V. Health Risk Assessment: Principles and Practices // Risk Assessment and Management Handbook. For Environmental, Health, and Safety Professionals. New York, 1996, pp. 123–151.
25. Kunreuther H., Slovic P. Science, Values, and Risk // Challenges in Risk Assessment and Management. Thousand Oaks; London, 1996, pp. 116–125.
26. Lewis H. W. technological risk. New York; London, 1990. 280 p.
27. Lindley D.V. Making Decisions. 2nd edition. London, 1985. 286 p.
28. Maslow A.H. The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York, 1971. 266 p.
29. Molak V. Introduction and Overview // Fundamentals of Risk Analysis and Risk Management. Boca Raton, 1997. P. 1–10.
30. Ossenbruggen P.J. Fundamental Principles of Systems Analysis and Decision-Making. New York, 1994. 312 p.
31. Preyssl C. The Evolution and Process of Risk Management at the European Apace Agency ESA // International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management. 2000. Vol.1. N 1/2. P. 80-89.
32. Rowe W.D. An Anatomy of Risk. Malabar, Florida, 1988. 416 p.
33. Slovic P. Perceived Risk, Trust and Democracy // Risk Analysis. 1993 Vol. 13. No. 6. P. 675–682.
34. Tengs T.O., Adams M.E., Pliskin J.S. et al. Five-Hundred Life-Saving Interventions and Their Cost-Effectiveness // Risk Analysis. 1995 Vol. 15. N3. P. 369–387.
Popular
- Principles and criteria for the examination of the value of documents
- Three Siemens NX Success Stories The integrated system is the ideal solution
- Basic elements of personnel management Basic elements of personnel management
- Quality management at the enterprise: standards, stages of implementation, tips
- How is the quarterly bonus calculated and how is it paid?
- Mysterious crossing on Abbey Road in England John Lennon originally named the group differently
- "Abbey Road" cover as the basis for a conspiracy legend
- How to write a letter of guarantee?
- Merchandising, its types and principles Fundamentals of merchandising in the textile industry
- Marketing activities in wholesale and retail trade