Issues of the Risk-Based Approach

The purpose of the article was to analyze the problems currently standing in the way of more effective application of the risk-based approach methodology in the field of technogenic safety management. Methods — theoretical, inductive method, analysis of own experience, adopted normative legal acts, other publications. The main results of the work include the following: • despite the broadest use of the concept of “risk” in the field of technogenic safety management, there is no generally accepted interpretation of it to date; • often the evaluative concept of “risk” is mistakenly used instead of objectively existing risk factors; • quantifiably technogenic risk should be characterized by indicators of numerical nature, having vector objects, since two components should be indicated for the complete assignment of the indicator: the probability and the amount of damage; • experience shows that the methods of assessing the probabilistic component of risk indicators recommended by regulatory documents on the analysis and quantification of technogenic risk are accompanied by a very large uncertainty, therefore, instead of the traditional point statement, a more adequate method of assessment is the use of an interval approach that takes into account and allows quantifying this uncertainty; • the analysis showed that the so-called frequency approach, which is most often used to assess the probabilistic component of technogenic risk indicators, is used improperly, has no basis, since, as a rule, the phenomenon of statistical stability is not observed in the object area of the technosphere, there are no general aggregates; • in society and even among specialists, by now there is no understanding of the need to express all three components of damage from an accident (explosion/fire) in monetary terms, without which it is impossible to estimate and express the amount of total damage: —  in conclusion, four key problems that hinder the more effective use of the risk-based approach methodology in the field of technogenic safety management are listed; —  imperfection of the existing methodological base for the analysis and quantitative assessment of technogenic risk; — the problem of staffing in the field of technogenic risk management; — lack of national criteria for acceptable risk; —  complete disregard of the problem of uncertainty of the results of the COR, the lack of methodological support for the procedure of analysis and quantification of this uncertainty. Conclusion — the efforts of the entire community of specialists-researchers, legislators, practitioners engaged in various aspects of the problem of technosphere safety management are necessary to solve the tasks specified in the article.

1. GOST R 51901.1-2002 Risk management. Risk Analysis of Technological Systems — IEC 60300-3-9:1995 Reliability Management. Part 3. Application guide. Section 9. Risk analysis of technological systems (In Russ.)

2. GOST R 51897-2011 Risk management. Terms and definitions — ISO 73:2009 Manual (In Russ.)

3. Bykov A.A. On the methodology of economic assessment of the Value of Statistical Life (Explanatory Note) // Issues of Risk Analysis. 2007;4(2):178-191 (In Russ.)

4. GOST 12.1.004-85 Fire safety. General requirements (In Russ.)

5. GOST 12.1.004-91 Fire safety. General requirements (In Russ.)

6. RD 08-120-96 Guidelines for conducting risk analysis of hazardous industrial facilities (In Russ.)

7. Methodology for determining the calculated values of fire risk at production facilities, approved by the Order of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia dated 10.07.2009 No. 404 as amended by the Order of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia dated 14.12.2010 No. 649 “On Amendments to the Order of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia dated 10.07.2009 No. 404” (In Russ.)

8. The Safety Manual “Methodological foundations for conducting hazard analysis and risk assessment of accidents at hazardous production facilities”: approved Federal Service for Environmental, Technological and Nuclear Supervision 11.04.2016. Ser. 27. Issue. 16. M.: CJSC STC PB, 2016. 55 p. (In Russ.)

9. CPR 14E Methods for the calculation of Physical Effects 3-rd. ed. The Hague, 2005.

10. Guidelines for chemical process quantitative risk analysis. 2nd ed. AIChE/CCPS, 2000. 744 p.

11. SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering. 3-rd. ed. Bethesda, 2002. 1604 p.

12. Federal Law No. 123-FZ of July 22, 2008 “Technical Regulations “On Fire Safety Requirements” (In Russ.)

13. Kolesnikov E.Yu. Analysis of technogenic risk: problems and uncertainties // Issues of Risk Analysis 2013;10(5):14-20 (In Russ.)