In the process of developing a risk management system, it is important to consider that this category has an objective and subjective content. The objectivity of risk is due to the presence of uncertainty, and, as stated above, any activity cannot be absolutely safe and predictable; there is always the possibility of losses.

However, the inevitability of risk does not mean that it does not need to be managed. Excessive uncertainty leads to increased instability, increases the likelihood of losses, bankruptcy, and failure to achieve set goals. On the other hand, the desire to minimize possible losses and get closer to the conditions of risk-free activity is also hardly justified. Everyone knows expressions like “he who doesn’t take risks, doesn’t drink champagne.” Thus, the desire to receive some benefit already means agreeing to accept the risk.

Resolving the dilemma of what level of risk is considered acceptable reflects its subjective content, since it is largely related to the attitude of the person responsible for the decision-maker towards risk. The choice may depend on the risk appetite, intuition, and experience of the manager. However, despite the presence of subjectivity, the formation of a risk management system presupposes the existence of specific principles that will facilitate the choice optimal option activities under conditions of uncertainty. Here the company's priorities in relation to risk must immediately be determined.

IN modern theory and practice, it is considered most appropriate to focus on the concept acceptable risk. Its essence lies in the formation of a conscious attitude towards risk, making decisions based on analysis, supported by a set of measures to mitigate and neutralize possible undesirable events in entrepreneurial activity. Within this concept, risk management does not mean minimizing its level, but searching for the optimal balance between uncertainty and profitability. In the most general view The concept of acceptable risk is expressed by the following provisions:

The presence of risk, even relatively high level, is not a reason for abandoning the project;

Seeking increased benefit means accepting increased risk;

Management decisions must be made based on alternative basis(in this case, it is advisable to choose an activity option that will ensure the achievement of the goal with a minimum level of risk or obtaining the maximum result with this level risk);

The costs of preventing risk should not be higher than the effect of reducing its level;

It is inappropriate to take risks if their level is higher than the possible expected result (in otherwise actions can be called adventurous);

Accepting risk means accepting responsibility; therefore, you cannot risk funds or resources that exceed the ability to cover damage in the event of a worst-case scenario.

The above provisions are only general management to action, on the basis of which a specific risk management system should be formed, taking into account the characteristics of the activities of a particular enterprise.

Traditional safety technology is based on a categorical imperative - to ensure safety and prevent any accidents. As practice shows, such a concept is inadequate to the laws of the technosphere. Requirement absolute safety, captivating with its humanity, can turn into a tragedy for people. Because to ensure zero risk in existing systems impossible,

Modern world rejected the concept of absolute security and came to the concept acceptable (tolerable) risk , the essence of which is the desire for such security that society accepts in a given period of time.

The public's perception of risk and hazards is subjective. People react sharply to rare events accompanied by a large number one-time victims.

At the same time, frequent events resulting in the death of units or small groups people do not cause such tension. Every day, 40-50 people die at work; in the country as a whole, more than 1,000 people per day lose their lives from various hazards. But this information is less impressive than the death of 5-10 people in one accident or any conflict. This needs to be kept in mind when considering the issue of acceptable risk. Subjectivity in risk assessment confirms the need to search for techniques and methodologies that do not have this drawback. According to experts, using risk as a hazard assessment is preferable to using traditional indicators.

Acceptable risk combines technical, economic, social and political aspects and represents some compromise between the level of security and the possibilities of achieving it.

First of all, it must be borne in mind that the economic opportunities for improving safety technical systems not unlimited.

Spending excessive amounts of money on improving safety can cause social harm, such as worsening medical care.

As costs increase, technical risk decreases, but social risk increases. The total risk has a minimum at a certain ratio between investments in the technical and social spheres. This circumstance must be taken into account when choosing the risk that society is still forced to put up with.

In some countries, such as Holland, acceptable risks are set at legislative order. Maximum acceptable level individual risk deaths are usually counted per year. Considered negligibly small individual risk deaths per year.

The maximum acceptable risk for ecosystems is the one that could cause harm to 5% types of biogeocenosis.

In fact, acceptable risks are 2-3 orders of magnitude stricter than actual ones. Therefore, the introduction of acceptable risks is an action directly aimed at protecting people.

To compare risks and benefits, many experts propose introducing the economic equivalent of human life. This approach raises objections among a certain circle of people who argue that human life holy and financial transactions unacceptable.

However, in practice, the need for such an assessment inevitably arises precisely for the sake of human safety, if the question is posed as follows: “How much money must be spent to save a human life?” According to foreign studies, human life is estimated at between 650 thousand and 7 million US dollars.

It should be noted that the procedure for determining risk is very approximate. There are 4 methodological approaches to determining risk:

1. Engineering, based on statistics, frequency calculation, probabilistic safety analysis, construction of hazard trees.

2. Model, based on impact modeling harmful factors per individual, social, professional groups and so on.

3. Expert, when the probability of events is determined based on a survey of experienced specialists, i.e. experts.

4. Sociological, based on a population survey. The listed methods reflect different aspects of risk. Therefore, they must be used in combination.

Dangers can materialize in emergency situations. IN Federal law Russian Federation dated December 21, 1994 No. 68-FZ “On the protection of the population and territories from emergency situations natural and technogenic nature» the following definition is given:

"Emergency- this is the situation on certain territory resulting from an accident, dangerous natural phenomenon, catastrophe, natural or other disaster that may result or have resulted in human casualties, damage to human health or the environment, significant material losses and disruption of people’s living conditions.”

In the above definition of an emergency, a number of concepts are used; it is necessary to specify their content.

Accident(GOST R 22.0.05 - 94) is a dangerous man-made incident that creates a threat to the life and health of people at an object, a certain territory or water area and leads to the destruction of buildings, structures, equipment and Vehicle, violation of production or transport process, as well as causing damage to the environment.

Major accident, resulting in human casualties, significant material damage and others severe consequences is catastrophe.

Dangerous a natural phenomenon - a natural event, which, due to its intensity, scale of distribution and duration, can cause negative consequences for the life of people, the economy and natural environment.

Disaster- a catastrophic natural phenomenon that can cause numerous casualties, significant material damage and other serious consequences.

Environmental disaster- (ecological disaster) an emergency event of particularly large scale, extreme change state of the land, atmosphere and biosphere and negatively affected people's health, their spiritual sphere, habitat, economy and gene pool.

Statistics of deaths in the Russian Federation from various emergencies for the year:

· in road accidents - more than 30 thousand people;

· at fires - 13-18 thousand people;

· on reservoirs - more than 17 thousand people;

· as a result of suicide - up to 30 thousand people;

· as a result of alcohol intoxication - 27 thousand people;

· injuries and injuries at work - more than 70 thousand people.

Safety– a condition in which, by observing legal norms, environmental and other requirements, as well as the implementation of appropriate measures, prevention or maximum reduction in the likelihood of occurrence is achieved. potential hazards, or possible damage in an emergency.

The Federal Law “On Safety...” defines safety, as a state of security is vital important interests individuals, society and state from internal and external threats.

The main security objects include:

· Personality– her rights and freedoms;

· Society– his material and spiritual values;

· State– its constitutional integrity, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Therefore, BJD should be considered next levels:

· worldwide;

· continental;

· state;

· regional;

· local (household).

BJD on global level achieved:

· maintaining the safety of human life on the planet from the influence of cosmic bodies (the star Nemisis);

· preservation of the railway from air and sea pollution;

· ensuring safety and security by preventing a global nuclear war.

On continental level BZD is provided by:

· preservation of the BZD from natural disasters(earthquakes, droughts, hurricanes);

· preservation of the Belarusian Railways by preventing wars between states ( local wars) on the continent;

achievement environmental safety;

· maintaining the life expectancy of people in underdeveloped countries through economic and food assistance.

On state level BJD is achieved:

· preservation of the BZD from natural Disasters, disasters, accidents;

· preserving the Belarusian Railways by preventing war with other states and interethnic conflicts within the state;

· preservation of the Belarusian Railways through socially oriented reforms in the economy;

· ensuring environmental safety in the country.

On regional level BZD is provided by:

· preservation of the Belarusian Railways from natural disasters, catastrophes, major industrial accidents inherent this region;

· preventing interethnic conflicts;

· achieving environmental safety in the region.

On local (household) level BJD is achieved:

· preservation of industrial railways from natural disasters, major industrial accidents, catastrophes;

· ensuring safety and security from attacks, terrorism in production and transport;

· preventive work to reduce road accidents and fires;

· ensuring environmental safety in the city (district);

· reducing the potential base for the development of crime through the implementation of socially oriented policies.

In theory, BJDs are considered according to the most dangerous sources Emergency the following types security.

CONCEPT OF ACCEPTABLE RISK.

Unacceptable area; 2 - acceptable area

3. Habituation of risk. Familiar risks, such as the risk of injury from electrical appliances, are more acceptable than the unknown risks of operating a nuclear reactor.

Risk assessment

Closely related to risk analysis is another process - risk assessment.

Risk assessment is a process used to determine the magnitude (measure) of risk of an analyzed hazard to human health, material assets, the natural environment and other situations related to the realization of danger. Risk assessment - mandatory part analysis. Risk assessment includes analysis of frequency, analysis of consequences and their combinations.

In the English-language literature, the terms “risk estimation”, “risk assessment”, “risk evaluation” are used, often having different meanings, but translated as risk assessment.

Risk assessment is the stage in which identified hazards must be assessed based on acceptable risk criteria in order to identify hazards with unacceptable levels of risk, and this step will form the basis for the development of recommendations and measures to reduce the hazards. At the same time, both the criteria for acceptable risk and the results of risk assessment can be expressed both qualitatively and quantitatively.

By definition, risk assessment includes frequency analysis and consequence analysis. However, when the effects are minor and the frequency is extremely low, it is sufficient to estimate one parameter.

There are four different approaches to risk assessment.

The first is engineering. It relies on statistics of breakdowns and accidents, on probabilistic safety analysis (PSA): construction and calculation of so-called event trees and fault trees - the process is based on oriented graphs. With the help of the former, they predict what a particular equipment failure may develop into, and failure trees, on the contrary, help to trace all the reasons that can cause some undesirable phenomenon. When the trees are built, the probability of each scenario (each branch) being realized is calculated, and then the overall probability of an accident at the facility is calculated.

The second approach, model-based, is the construction of models of the impact of harmful factors on humans and the environment. These models can be described as consequences regular work enterprises, as well as damage from accidents at them.

The first two approaches are based on calculations; however, reliable initial data are not always enough for such calculations. In this case, the third approach is acceptable - the expert one: the probabilities of various events, the connections between them and the consequences of accidents are determined not by calculations, but by interviewing experienced experts.

Finally, within fourth approach- sociological - the attitude of the population towards different types risk, for example through sociological surveys.

The fact that four very different methods are used to determine risk should not be surprising. IN different tasks Risk should be understood as either the probability of an accident, or the scale of possible damage from it, or even a combination of these two quantities. When describing a risk, one must also take into account the benefit that society receives when it takes it (useless risk is unacceptable, even if it is negligible). In other words, the magnitude of the risk is not a single number, but rather a vector consisting of several components. And therefore we are dealing with the so-called multicriteria choice, the procedure of which is described by decision theory.

There are many uncertainties associated with risk assessment. Uncertainty analysis - essential component risk assessments. As a rule, the main sources of uncertainty are information on equipment reliability and human errors, as well as assumptions of the applied emergency process models. To correctly interpret risk values, you need to understand the uncertainties and their causes. Uncertainty analysis is the translation of the uncertainty of the input parameters and proposals used in the risk assessment into the uncertainty of the results.

Sources of uncertainty should be identified where possible. The main parameters to which the assay is sensitive should be presented in the results.

It is important to emphasize that complex and expensive calculations often produce a risk value whose accuracy is very low. For complex technical systems, the accuracy of individual risk calculations, even if all necessary information, not higher than one order. At the same time, carrying out a complete quantification risk is more useful for comparison various options(for example, placement of equipment) than to conclude about the degree of safety of the facility. Foreign experience shows that the largest volume of safety recommendations is developed using qualitative (engineering) risk analysis methods, which allow achieving the main goals of risk analysis using less information and labor costs. However, quantitative methods of risk assessment are always very useful, and in some situations - the only acceptable ones, in particular, for comparing hazards of different natures or when examining particularly dangerous, complex and expensive technical systems.

Some aspects of risk management.

Risk and decision making.

There are two fundamentally different approaches to making decisions regarding security various types human activity and its protection from natural and man-made disasters. The first “comes from the person” - subjective. The second “comes from the essence of the problem” - objective. On the first approach experts or decision makers have a clear understanding of how to act in various specific cases. And the task is to, based on formal methods and computer systems, correctly asking them questions and discussing various model situations, extract this knowledge, clear it of internal contradictions and build on this basis decisive rules and evaluate possible options actions. When implementing a number of large technological projects related to objects increased danger, with the need to reconcile the interests of many parties, such procedures have proven to be very effective. They are especially needed if we expect to approach each object and decision made individually. This is a tactic rather than a risk management strategy.

On the second approach we form general principles, applied to many heterogeneous objects, the corresponding norms and methods, and then we consolidate them in legislative acts. This approach is simpler and more visual than the first, but less specific and flexible. Apparently, when analyzing risk management, it is necessary, first of all, to solve the important methodological question- when to give preference to the first and when to the second approach.

Of course, many problems associated with risk management are quite obvious and do not require the use of formal methods and scientific analysis. For example, both practice and textbooks convince us that control or inspection bodies cannot be legally or actually subordinate to the services and departments that they are designed to control. Otherwise, the efficiency of the activities of the relevant structures decreases, and with it the degree of safety. Thus, Atomnadzor cannot be subordinated to the ministry nuclear energy. Higher Attestation Committee - Ministry of Education, etc. The implementation of many other similar provisions is not a matter of science, but of practice.

CONCEPT OF ACCEPTABLE RISK.

2.5.1 The concept of risk management: general provisions.

The presence of natural, social and anthropogenic threats to the existence of society and human life encourages him to searching for scientifically based solutions to ensure one’s own safety. This is the main issue in the theory and practice of security.

Russian legislation interprets security as a state of protection of the vital interests of the individual, society and state. Thus, normative interpretation recognizes safety realistically and constantly existing sources, conditions and risk factors for life, health and normal activities citizens, their groups and society as a whole, their material values, as well as for the stability of the state.

The assessment of these risks characterizes the degree of danger, scale and geography of specific natural and natural-anthropogenic sources and risk factors for socio-economic and ecological systems, as well as the vulnerabilities of these systems themselves, which are objects of risk. This assessment is the basis for making decisions on mitigating and eliminating natural and natural-anthropogenic threats to the above-mentioned systems. Decision making and implementation are at the core of the risk management process.

The concept of acceptable risk

The traditional approach to security is based on the concept of “absolute security”. Its essence boiled down to the desire to make technology and the technosphere absolutely safe for people and assumed the introduction of all protective measures that are practically feasible. However, now people have come to understand that absolute security is unattainable or is associated with huge, sometimes unjustified for society financial costs. In addition, the requirement of absolute safety, captivating with its humanity, turns into a tragedy for people, because it is impossible to ensure zero risk in existing systems, and a person must be oriented towards the possibility of a dangerous situation.

Therefore, in industrial developed countries starting from the late 70s - early 80s. XX century in research related to safety, a transition has begun from the concept of absolute safety to the concept of acceptable (permissible) risk, the essence of which is to reduce the danger to such a low level that society accepts in a given period of time.

By now, ideas have been formed about the values ​​of acceptable (tolerable) and unacceptable risk. Acceptable risk is the level of danger at which at this stage development of society can be reconciled. It's such low level mortality, injury or disability of people that does not affect the safety performance of an enterprise, industry or state.

Unacceptable risk is the maximum risk above which it is necessary to take measures to eliminate it. Unacceptable risk has a probability of occurrence negative impact more than 10-3, acceptable - less than 10-6. With risk values ​​from 10-3 to 10-6, it is customary to distinguish a transition region of risk values. For factors that lead to long-term dangerous consequences and do not have an action threshold, the same norms are adopted. If such factors affect only when a threshold is exceeded (for example, extremely permissible concentration harmful substance), then the maximum acceptable level of risk corresponds to the threshold. The maximum acceptable risk for ecosystems is considered to be one in which 5% of biogeocenosis species may suffer. Acceptable risks are 2-3 orders of magnitude “stricter” than actual ones, i.e. their introduction is directly aimed at protecting humans.

Acceptable risk combines technical, economic, social and political aspects and represents a compromise between the required level of safety and the ability to achieve it. The resources of any society are limited, and if an unreasonably large amount of money is invested in measures aimed at reducing technical risk, then the amount of funds allocated to the development of the social sphere and the economy will decrease. Those. As security costs increase, the technical risk decreases, but the socio-economic risk increases. The total risk curve has a minimum at in a certain way between investments in technical and social spheres. This has to be taken into account when choosing the level of risk that society is currently forced to put up with.

Socially acceptable criteria for the safety of equipment for society as a whole and the individual have been developed:

1. for society - expected value damage no more than 1% of public costs for the creation, operation and destruction of the facility;
2. for an individual from the population - the probability of death or serious injury is not higher than that of everyday life or from accidents damaging factors;
3. for an individual from the staff, serving the facility- no higher than for less dangerous professions.

The acceptable risk principle is known as the ALARA principle (an acronym for as low as reasonably achievable, i.e. "as low as is reasonably achievable").

The acceptable risk policy is based on several principles:

1. formation of high quality new goal safety: from the goal of an absolute safety policy, focused only on improving technical systems, to a goal focused on improving the health of each person, society as a whole and the quality of the environment;
2. development of methods for quantitative assessment of hazard factors based on risk study methodology;
3. developing methods for quantitative safety assessment based on indicators of human health and environmental quality;
4. developing methods for determining an acceptable balance between the dangers and benefits of a particular activity, based on an assessment of social preferences, economic opportunities and environmental limitations of the latter, i.e. methods for determining acceptable risk,
5. reorientation of the safety control system: from control concentrated mainly on hazard factors, to control over the impact of these factors on humans and their environment, while maintaining control over hazard factors.

The degree of implementation of this concept in practical activities today varies in different countries and in some of them it has already been introduced into legislation. For example, in the Netherlands, this concept was adopted by the country's parliament in 1985 as state law. According to it, the probability of death within a year for an individual from dangers associated with the technosphere is more than 10-6 is considered unacceptable, and less than 10-8 is negligible. The “acceptable” level of risk is selected in the range of 10-6-10-8 per year, based on economic and social reasons.

The Netherlands should be considered as an example of a country where probabilistic methods are most widely used in practical activities to ensure the safety of the population from risk during operation industrial facilities. In other countries (EU countries, USA, Canada, Japan) the scope of use of the concept of “acceptable” risk in legislation is more limited, but in all these countries there is a tendency towards its increasingly full application.

When comparing the levels of risks occurring in our country with the values ​​that are considered acceptable and unacceptable in industrialized countries, it is clear that risks already at the level of 10-3 are unacceptable for a number of countries. Thus, Russia’s indicators for realized individual risks, unfortunately, turn out to be significantly higher than the levels of unacceptable risks in industrialized countries.

There is a level of risk that can be considered negligible. If the risk from an asset does not exceed this level, there is no point in taking further measures to improve safety, since this will require significant costs, and people and environment due to other factors, they will still be exposed to almost the same risk. On the other hand, there is a level of maximum acceptable risk that cannot be exceeded, whatever the costs. Between these two levels lies the area in which it is necessary to reduce risk, finding a compromise between social benefits and financial losses associated with increased safety.

Within the framework of the concept of acceptable risk, the growth in the standard of living of all members of society is limited, since its implementation does not take into account the benefits (social utility) from advanced technologies, which at first may be associated with increased risk for those who implement them. This leads to their rejection by the public. But new technologies are eventually mastered by humanity as a means for... survival and further improvement of the standard of living of members of society.

Therefore, as a regulator of human safety, along with the concept of acceptable risk, the concept of justified risk should be used, according to which the risk that is socially justified is acceptable. At the same time, members of society directly at risk, whose safety at this stage of development of science and technology cannot be ensured at an acceptable level, receive socio-economic compensation from society.

Acceptable risk- this is a risk that in a given situation (under given circumstances, at a given level of development of science and technology) is acceptable given existing social values. Socially acceptable risk evaluates not only and not so much the absolute values ​​of risk, taking into account many aspects of life, but rather the existing trends in the growth or reduction of risks of various conservative and new types of activities accepted by society. It is appropriate to determine acceptable risk based on various levels- from the organization of the economic sector to the state.

The need to formulate the concept of acceptable (permissible) risk is due to the impossibility of creating an absolutely safe activity (technological process). Acceptable risk combines technical, economic, social and political aspects. In practice, this is always a compromise between the level of safety achieved in society (based on indicators of mortality, morbidity, injury, disability) and the possibilities of increasing it using economic, technological, organizational and other methods. The economic opportunities for improving the safety of technical and sociotechnical systems are not unlimited. Thus, in production, spending excessive funds on improving the safety of technical systems can weaken funding social programs production (reducing the cost of purchasing workwear, medical service, Spa treatment and etc.).

An example of determining acceptable risk is shown in Fig. 2.2. As costs for improving equipment increase, the technical risk decreases, but the social risk increases. The total risk has a minimum at a certain ratio between investments in technical and social sphere. This circumstance must be taken into account when choosing an acceptable risk. The approach to assessing acceptable risk is very broad. Thus, the graph presented in Fig. 2.2, is equally acceptable both for the state and for specific organization. The main thing remains in the first case the choice of an acceptable risk for society, in the second - for the organization’s staff.

Currently, taking into account international practice it is generally accepted that the action man-made hazards(technical risk) should be in the range from 10 -7 - 10 -6 ( deaths person -1 · year -1), and a value of 10 -6 is the maximum acceptable level of individual risk. IN Russian legislation in the field of safety, this value is used to assess fire safety and radiation safety.

Motivated (reasonable) and unmotivated (unreasonable) risk. In case of industrial accidents, fires, in order to save people affected by accidents and fires, a person has to take risks. The validity of such a risk is determined social necessity providing assistance to affected people, official duty, personal desire to save expensive equipment or enterprise structures from destruction.

Rice. 2.2. Determining acceptable risk

At the same time, human neglect of identified dangers leads to situations associated with individually and socially unjustified risks. Thus, the reluctance of production workers to be guided current requirements security technological processes, non-use of funds personal protection and so on. can create an unreasonable risk, usually leading to injuries and creating the preconditions for industrial accidents.

In Fig. 2.3 shows one of possible forms presenting a qualitative risk assessment for various types and products of human activity.

Rice. 2.3. Qualitative risk assessments various fields and products of human activity ( public opinion citizens and funds mass media on issues of risk management and risk reduction)

The figure shows that ordinary ideas about the risk of possible adverse consequences, related to human life or health, include a wide variety of aspects and significantly depend on the characteristics taken into account - duration of exposure, justification, severity of consequences, etc.