CC BY
1UDK 331.461.2, 331.453
ASSESSMENT OF HAZARDS AND PROFESSIONAL RISKS OF WORKERS OF INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN
YEVTYUSHKINA EKATERINA SERGEEVNA
Student at the Faculty of Technology of the Kazakh University of Technology and Business named after K. Kulazhanov, Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan
USSENKULOVA SHOLPAN ZHENISBEKOVNA
Scientific supervisor - Phd, associate professor of the department of "Chemistry, chemical technology and ecology" of the Kazakh University of Technology and Business named after K.
Kulazhanov, Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan
ZHUNUSSOVA ELVIRA BAKHTYGALIEVNA
cand.tech.sc., associate professor of the department "Chemistry, chemical technology and ecology" of the Kazakh University of Technology and Business named after K. Kulazhanov,
Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan
NURTAI ZHADYRA TASTENBEKOVNA
Phd, associate professor of the department of "Chemistry, chemical technology and ecology" of the Kazakh University of Technology and Business named after K. Kulazhanov, Astana,
Republic of Kazakhstan
TAKIROVA AIGERIM KHASENOVNA
Master of Tech. Sc., senior teacher of the department of "Chemistry, chemical technology and ecology" of the Kazakh University of Technology and Business named after K. Kulazhanov,
Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan
Annotation. One of the essential challenges in the field of injury prevention among workers at industrial enterprises is the urgent and effective identification and assessment of all possible hazards and occupational risks. In this article, various approaches to this assessment are considered, proposed both by legislative and normative acts, and by researches of foreign and domestic authors. The task of this study is a critical analysis of existing methods of assessing hazards and occupational risks for workers in industrial enterprises. As a result of the analysis, a strategy for solving the problem of trauma prevention among workers of industrial enterprises was revealed, focusing on the "preliminary" assessment of their professional risks, that is, at the stage before the possible occurrence of negative events.
Keywords: Industrial traumatism, risk assessment, working conditions, man-made accidents
Introduction. Any human activity, including work, contains various potential hazards that cause industrial injuries and occupational diseases. The consequence may be accidents, accidents, fires, etc.
Among the sources of professional risks, the following can be identified:
- the work environment itself;
- factors of the working environment and labor process;
- injury hazard to equipment and technological processes, which can subsequently lead to accidents;
- accidents and emergencies at work [1].
The number of man-made hazards, as well as the degree of their negative impact in the modern world, is constantly growing. The Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Republic of Kazakhstan) is no exception, where more than 300 people die each year as a result of occupational injuries and more than 3,000 people are injured of varying degrees of severity. Ab out
15,000 - 16,000 emergencies and incidents are registered annually, and the vast majority of them (more than 80%) are man-made incidents. Of the 1.6 million workers at industrial enterprises in the country surveyed in 2022, 370 thousand workers, or one in four (22%) were employed in harmful and dangerous working conditions. [2].
A large number of scientific and methodological works have been written on the assessment of professional risks. Regulatory documents contain instructions on the use of both direct and indirect risk assessment methods, through which indicators of the state of working conditions and personalized data of workers are analyzed mainly.
A number of methods for assessing occupational risks are characterized by subjectivity, the absence of clear criteria for assigning certain values to parameters, an unreasonable division of scales of the probability of adverse events occurring, and the lack of connection between risk assessment and specific technical and technological parameters of production processes.
The results of assessing occupational risks form the basis for recommendations for reducing them. If it is necessary to justify and evaluate the effectiveness of proposed risk reduction measures, it is necessary to solve optimization problems. Namely:
- with given means, ensure maximum risk reduction;
- ensure risk reduction to an acceptable level at minimal cost.
ISO standards for risk management, including occupational safety and health (OHSAS 18001), developed in large numbers, represent the simplest tools for expert assessments of the state of affairs with occupational safety or health of workers [3].
One of the problems in the field of preventing injuries, emergencies and incidents is a timely, objective and complete assessment of existing or emerging potential hazards. At the moment, there are a large number of methods for such assessment (numerical, scoring, etc.). The most common hazard assessment is risk, i.e. the probability of an undesirable event occurring in the system, which can be identified with a certain and sufficient degree of accuracy from statistical data. According to another definition, risk is an objective or subjective measurement of the probability and possibility of the consequences of a dangerous event affecting human well-being or the environment [4]. Most scientists and researchers in the field of life safety use the following general definition: risk is a quantitative assessment of danger.
Table 1 presents statistical data on occupational injuries for the period from 2020 to 2022. in the country as a whole [2]. The number of victims of industrial accidents in 2022, compared to 2020, did not change significantly and amounted to 2,033 people (in 2020, the number of victims was 2,160 people). In 2022, 207 people died as a result of industrial accidents, in 2020 - 203 people. The mortality rate decreased by 5.6%.
Tablel Statistical data on injuries to workers in sectors of the economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan for the period from 2020 to 2022.
— — Indicator name — Value of indicators by year
o. — 2020 — 202 1 — 202 2
— -1 Number of employees in sectors of the — 8,800 — 8,8 — 8,9
economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan, thousand. .0 55.2 01,1
— people
— -2 Number of workers killed at work, — people — 203 — 199 — 207
— -3 Number of injured workers per — 2 160 — 2 — 2,0
— production, people 111 33
— -4 The actual risk of death of workers at — 2.47X — 2.1 — 2.3
— production 10-5 6x10-5 1x10-5
— — The actual risk of injury to workers at — 2.48X — 2.4 — 2.3
work 10-4 x10-4 2x10-4
The data presented in Table 1 indicate that the risk of death of workers at work in the Republic as a whole is more than 2 times higher than the generally accepted global level of acceptable acceptable risk. Moreover, the calculation was carried out for the economy as a whole, both for more and less hazardous sectors. If such a calculation is made for the most injury-prone sectors of the country, it will be: for the construction industry - 9.43 x 10-5, for the mining industry - 11.1 x 10-5, for the mechanical engineering industry - 5.48 x 10-5. All this indicates an unacceptably low level of occupational safety and health (hereinafter referred to as OSH) for workers at industrial enterprises of the Republic of Kazakhstan [5].
The objective of the study was to critically analyze existing state regulations in the Republic of Kazakhstan, methods or approaches to assessing occupational risks proposed by various authors, as well as to develop priority areas for their improvement.
According to the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the employer is obliged to provide employees with safe working conditions. However, the state of conditions and labor protection in matters of ensuring occupational safety often remains unsatisfactory and the number of workers working in hazardous working conditions continues to grow (Picture 1)
9.7
%
2018 — 019
— 2020
— 2021 —
022
Picture 1. Share of workers employed in harmful and dangerous working conditions Unfavorable working conditions give rise to a high level of industrial injuries and
occupational diseases.
Research methods. Currently, several state methods are in force in the Republic of Kazakhstan, which are mandatory for execution by all state control and supervisory authorized bodies, as well as enterprises and organizations. The regulatory methodology recommended at the state level for assessing the level of industrial safety of an industrial facility is set out in the order Minister for Investment and Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 26, 2014 No. 300 [6]. The main purpose of these Rules is to determine the degree of protection of individuals and legal entities and the environment from hazardous and harmful production factors (hereinafter referred to as HAPF) through monitoring the level of industrial safety both by state authorized bodies in the field of industrial safety and by the relevant departments of enterprises and organizations. The general level of danger of a production facility (hereinafter referred to as the HPF) is determined by the enterprise operating this facility once a year using a calculation method based on the following indicators: the condition of production buildings and technological
structures; the condition of technical devices, including dangerous ones; accidents and incidents that occurred; frequency of industrial accidents (hereinafter referred to as accidents); fatal accidents occurring at work. The final overall level of danger of an object is determined by the sum of the above indicators.
If we talk about the assessment methodology, two main problems can be identified: the lack of a unified conceptual approach and the lack of a single approved unified methodology for the integral assessment of professional risk.
1. Lack of a unified conceptual approach. SUPR and OSMS have common basic elements, but conceptually they are different. Occupational risk assessment has three conceptual approaches, most widely used in the Republic of Kazakhstan [7]:
- in the context of occupational medicine (Ministry of Health) - index of occupational diseases
where KR - risk category; CT - coefficient of severity of occupational diseases; - in the context of occupational safety and health (Ministry of Labor and Social Protection) -level of occupational risk
where ri is an indicator of the nature and severity of damage; r2 - frequency of injuries and accidents; r3 - material consequences of incidents;
- in the context of social insurance (Social Insurance Fund) - integral indicator of professional risk
where EBB - total costs of compensation for harm; EFOT - the amount of wages in the industry.
In the course of our research, we consider the assessment of occupational risk in the concept of occupational safety and health. It seems to us necessary, until all conceptual disagreements are resolved, to create a temporary (conditionally imperfect) approach to the quantitative assessment of professional risks based on the indicators available in the organization [7].
2. Lack of a single approved unified methodology for the integral assessment of occupational risk. The development of approaches related to the management of occupational risks requires new, more complete ideas about occupational injuries, a reassessment of old ones and the development of new criteria and risk assessment factors (indicators).
Currently, approaches to assessing occupational risk are considered in various regulatory legal acts (RLA).
Another state regulatory methodology for assessing the level of hazards and risks of a production facility is set out in the joint order of the Minister for Investment and Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 1206 dated December 15, 2015 and the Minister of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 814 dated December 28, 2015 [8]. Evaluation indicators here are formed using objective and subjective criteria. According to objective criteria, subjects or objects subject to inspection are divided into 2 groups - high and not classified as high risk. For subjects or objects of the first group, a special procedure for conducting inspections is applied based on semi-annual schedules, unscheduled inspections and other forms of control and supervision. For subjects or objects of the second group - only unscheduled inspections and other forms of control and supervision. According to the indicators of subjective criteria, a mechanism is used to encourage bona fide subjects or objects in the form of exempting them from the special procedure for checking the state of industrial safety. These criteria, according to their significance,
IPZ =(KR • CT)-1,
(1)
R = ry r2 • r3,
(2)
ip =100 • (EBB / EFOT),
(3)
in the document under consideration are divided into 3 degrees of violations according to industrial safety: gross, significant and insignificant. When determining the risk level indicator, the specific weight of each of the unfulfilled safety requirements is assessed. Then they are summed up and a general indicator of the degree of risk of the inspected subject or object of high risk is found, depending on the magnitude of which such subject or object is exempted from the special procedure for conducting inspections based on semi-annual schedules (from 0 to 60 points) or not exempted (from 60 to 100 points).
Moreover, if at least one unfulfilled safety requirement of a rough degree is identified, then the overall risk level indicator of the subject or object being inspected is equal to 100 and no further calculation is made.
Risk assessment criteria. In accordance with GOST 12.0.010-09 [2], risk assessment is carried out by direct and indirect methods (Pic. 2). The figure shows the dependence of the choice of method on the goals of risk assessment, the amount of statistical information and the characteristics of the problems being solved.
Direct method suse statistical information on selected risk indicators or directly indicators of damage and the likelihood of their occurrence. If there is statistical information sufficient to achieve the required accuracy of the assessment, the value of the risk indicator is assessed (predicted) using, in the general case, methods of multivariate statistical analysis. To ensure the required accuracy of risk assessment when there is insufficient statistical information, statistical methods based on a combined sample, probabilistic-statistical or expert-statistical methods are used. The criterion for choosing a method is the relative error of the risk indicator, calculated through quantiles of distributions that describe the error as a random variable, the frequency of the selected risk indicator and the volume of observations [9].
Methods of multivariate statistical analysis Methods: - pooled sample statistical; - probabilistic-statistical; - expert-statistical; - expert Methods, using conversion functions
Risk assessment
Pic. 2.Procedure for assessing professional risks
When assessing risks using direct methods, the following risk indicators are used:
— KCR- accident frequency rate - the number of accidents that occurred in one year, per 103 employees;
— KCHH- accident frequency rate - the number of accidents that occurred during 10 man-hours worked;
— KCHSI- fatal accident frequency rate - the number of fatal accidents that occurred in one year, per 10 employees;
— KTPT- industrial injury severity coefficient - the average duration of temporary disability per accident that occurred in one year. - Occupational morbidity index [6]
IPZ= (KR-KT)-l, (4)
where KR is the category of frequency of detection of occupational diseases (1st category -more than 10% of cases of occupational diseases; 2nd category - 1-10%; 3rd category - up to 1%);
CT- category of severity of the identified occupational disease (category 5 - temporary loss of ability to work up to three weeks; category 4 - more than three weeks; category 3 - permanent partial disability, etc.). Integral indicator by type of economic activity
where Ebb is the total amount of expenses for insurance coverage for this type of economic activity in the past calendar year; ETF - the size of the wage fund for a given type of economic activity, on which insurance premiums for compulsory social insurance against industrial accidents and occupational diseases are calculated in the past calendar year.
Injury index - the number of days of temporary disability as a result of accidents per 103 workers in one year [10]
If there is no statistical information on the values of selected risk indicators or it is necessary to establish the impact of hazards on risks (partially solve the problem of managing health protection and ensuring occupational safety), then risk calculations are carried out using expert methods. Risk R is generally calculated by summing the products of possible discrete values of damage to the health and life of an employee Ui and the probability of their occurrence Pi:
where N is the number of discrete values of possible damage (of the same type, of the same dimension) or groups combining them. The value calculated using formula (6) is the mathematical expectation of a discrete random variable - damage to the health and life of the employee. If damage U is a continuous random variable having a probability distribution density (U), then the risk is calculated using the formula
R = j Uf(U)dU
The integral is taken over the entire range of damage changes. The characteristics of random numbers, including the values of probability and damage, are usually determined using a representative sample limited in volume and time. In this case, formula (6) takes on the following form:
where R* is a statistical risk assessment; P* - frequency of occurrence of Ui damage health and life of the employee. Risk assessment in the workplace is carried out using formulas (6-8) in a certain sequence:
1. Identification of hazards and their manifestations (if necessary).
2. Determining the relevance of each identified hazard, possible damage and its corresponding weighting factor.
3. Determination of qualitative values of the probabilities of the occurrence of damage and an outcome not related to the occurrence of damage, and the corresponding weighting coefficients by logical analysis of the event tree or using a verbal description of the probabilities (frequencies).
4. Determination of risks for each of the identified hazards by multiplying the numerical values of the probabilities (frequencies) of the occurrence of damage and the corresponding weighting coefficients of damage.
5. Assessment of the significance of risks for each of the identified hazards using a risk significance assessment scale.
6. Determination of the overall risk in the workplace by adding the risks of each identified hazard.
7. Assessment of the significance of risks in the workplace according to the scale for assessing the significance of risks [5].
The final stage of control and monitoring of occupational risks involves, firstly, control and verification of all developed corrective measures, and secondly, monitoring of risks through the collection and analysis of analytical indicators of the results of the assessment to generate complete information on reducing the degree of their danger.
The advantage of this methodology is that it is the content that meets the requirement of preliminary establishment of levels of occupational risks and the development of measures to reduce them before emergencies occur. The disadvantages include the following: the frequency of such occupational risk assessment by the enterprise has not been determined;
It is not clear why, given the requirements for a comprehensive survey of working conditions with instrumental measurements that are identical to the existing methodology for certifying workplaces (which will be discussed below), these Rules were not combined/combined.
Methodology for assessing professional risks, developed in the system of accident insurance for workers. In accordance with paragraph 14 of Article 182 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the employer is obliged to insure employees against accidents during the performance of their labor (official) duties. The mechanism of such insurance is described in detail in the following regulatory documents:
— Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On compulsory insurance of an employee against accidents during the performance of his labor (official) duties" dated 02/07/2005 No. 30 [10];
— "Rules for classifying types of economic activities as occupational risk classes" dated June 30, 2005 [11].
Assessment of the degree of occupational risk of a specific type of economic activity of an enterprise or organization is based on the following statistical indicators: the number of victims of accidents during the year; annual actually accrued amount of payments to victims of emergency situations, incl. the average amount of accrued payments per victim; annual number of victims of occupational diseases; the amount of accrued payments to victims of occupational diseases per year, incl. the average amount of accrued payments per victim; the number of deaths due to emergency situations per year; the annual amount of actually accrued payments in the event of death of
employees, incl. their average size; annual wage fund for this type of economic activity; average annual number of employees for this type of economic activity [12].
Although, based on the considered method of assessing occupational risk, it is possible to draw conclusions about the degree of injury hazard in various industries by type of economic activity, its use by occupational safety and health services of enterprises is difficult due to its narrow focus on the insurance industry. Also, all calculations here are made based on the negative consequences that have already occurred (the number of deaths, victims of accidents and occupational diseases, etc.).
The legislation also provides for the right of the insurance company in certain cases to seek assistance from experts in the field to establish the degree of professional risk.
Expert methods for hazard identification and risk assessment. Currently, various expert methods are widely used in the problem of assessing hazards and occupational risks. The use of such methods becomes especially relevant in the absence of statistical data on injuries and occupational diseases, as well as basic indicators for determining risk by calculation. The main tasks of experts, who, as a rule, are involved from among leading scientists or experienced practitioners in this field, are: identification of hazards and objective assessment of occupational risks of workers based on the characteristics of the production process and environment, the existing work organization and other factors, including criteria-based assessment according to the degree of acceptability and inadmissibility; assessment of the measures and technical means used for their effectiveness in protecting workers; documentation of all procedures performed.
Expert methods for identifying hazards and assessing risks, despite their simplicity and clarity, are characterized by a high degree of dependence of the results of such identification on the subjective opinion of specific individuals involved as experts. In this regard, such methods are insufficient for a full study of the actual state of occupational safety and health at work. The accumulated experience in the field of industrial safety shows that reliable and complete information about working conditions and levels of professional risks cannot be obtained without instrumental measurements of the values of indicators of the industrial environment [13].
Toquantitative assessment of professional risks according to the risk assessment matrix. Determination and assessment of risks to the workplace is carried out on the basis of established risk elements:
- the severity of possible damage to health and safety (injury) from identified hazards in the workplace;
- the probability of causing this damage.
The magnitude and degree of risks to the workplace are determined by an expert method using a risk assessment matrix (RAM), built on the basis of established risk elements. The RAM contains five levels of severity of consequences vertically and five levels of probability (frequency) of an accident horizontally: matrix (5x5). Each level of severity of consequences along the vertical axis (subjective severity scale) and each level of probability along the horizontal axis (subjective frequency scale) are assigned rank scores 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, which correspond to the values of the severity of consequences and the probability of an event occurring according to the description of a particular situation (according to the scenario) and qualitative characteristics of the frequency of the event (ranking of scenarios). Severity values on the vertical scale of severity of RAM consequences are provided with numbers indicating the rank value (1, 2, 4, 5) and are designated by letters (N, Mi, Mo, S and C - according to the first letters of the English words characterizing each level).
Each severity level has a description of the corresponding situations in increasing severity
[14]:
(1)N [Negligible - English. insignificant, unimportant, not taken into account, ignored]: no injury, minor damage, the impact can be neglected;
(2)Mi [Minor - English. minor, insignificant, minor, light, not serious, not dangerous]: minor damage, minor injuries, the impact on health and safety is negligible (the consequences are easily remedied, the costs of eliminating the consequences are not high);
(3)Mo [Moderate - English. moderate, moderate]: low impact on health and safety, moderate
injuries, lost time injuries, moderate incident (presence of accidental releases, no major cost to clean up);
(4)S [Serious - English. serious, important, significant, significant]: accidents with long-term loss of ability to work, the impact on the health and safety of personnel is noticeable, an incident with serious consequences (minor destruction, significant disruption of the functions of equipment, liquidation of consequences is associated with significant costs);
(5)With [Critical - English. critical, demanding, disapproving]: fatalities, critical impact on the health and safety of personnel, significant destruction, complete failure of equipment, liquidation of consequences requires significant resources.
Conclusions. The analysis of existing approaches and methods for assessing hazards and occupational risks of workers at industrial enterprises in the Republic of Kazakhstan allowed us to draw the following conclusions:
— The main aspect in solving this problem is the preliminary stage and the nature of such an assessment, i.e. such a mechanism that allows for risk assessment "before" the occurrence of negative events, and not "after" their occurrence (emergency situations, accidents, etc.);
— Currently, among scientists and practitioners there is no single approach to the category of professional risk, the mechanism for its identification and measurement. The very content or content of the concept of risk may vary depending on the specifics of the worker's profession, the nature of the work performed, etc.;
— The regulatory methods or approaches to assessing occupational risks considered and those proposed by various authors have certain shortcomings. For example, some of them are limited only to assessing the state of individual workplaces and do not take into account the size of possible accidents (methodology for determining the level of industrial safety based on the accident rate indicator), others are characterized by a certain subjectivity (expert methods), some methods are of an abstract nature and are not used in the course of such an assessment sufficient factual statistical data (matrix methods), some difficult to use (normative and probabilistic assessment methods);
— The results of the analysis of various approaches to assessing professional risks indicate that none of them separately provides objectivity and conditions "preliminary" nature of such an assessment, i.e. before the occurrence of negative events, with the exception of two of them: "Rules for Occupational Risk Management" and "Rules for Mandatory Periodic Certification of Production Facilities for Working Conditions.
— the search and development of new methods and methods for assessing occupational risk, which are sufficiently simple and reliable when applied in real production conditions, preventing the occurrence of injuries to workers, and in general, man-made accidents are quite relevant.
LITERATURE
1. Official statistics. By industry. Health statistics. Dynamic tables. Injury indicators / Bureau of National Statistics of the Agency for Strategic Planning and Reforms of the Republic of Kazakhstan // stat.gov.kz: [website]. — URL: https://stat.gov.kz/official/industry/63/statistic/8 (access date: 02/10/2022).
2. Results of work for 2020, 2021. / Official website of the Industrial Safety Committee of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Department of Industrial Safety // gov.kz: [website]. — URL: https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/kpb/documents/details/ 198142?lang=ru (access date: 02/10/2022).
3. Occupational safety and health 2020. / Official website of the Committee of Labor, Social Protection and Migration of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Population of the Republic of Kazakhstan // gov.kz: [website]. — URL: https://www. gov.kz/memleket/entities/lspm/activities/292?lang=ru (date of access: 02/10/2022).
4. GOST R 12.0.010-09. System of occupational safety standards. Occupational safety management systems. Hazard identification and risk assessment. - Enter. 2011-01-01. - M.: Standartinform, 2011. - 20 p.
5. Glushkov, V. A. Improving occupational safety management / V. A. Glushkov, R. A. Sayfutdinov, S. N. Varyukhin // Current issues of modern science. - 2014. - No. 38. - P. 47-56.
7. Iskakova, A. K. Analysis of approaches to assessing professional risks / A. K. Iskakova, E. V. Bakiko // Youth and the XXI century: materials of the VI International. youth scientific conf. -Kursk, 2016. - pp. 25-27.
8. Iskakova, A. K. Methodological problems of assessing professional risks / A. K. Iskakova, E. V. Bakiko // Technosphere safety: materials of the III interuniversity. scientific-technical conf. -Omsk: Omsk State Technical University Publishing House, 2016. - P. 146-151.
9. Mathematical models of production risks and protection systems: monograph / A. V. Goryaga [et al.]; Ministry of Education and Science of Russia, Omsk State Technical University. -Omsk: Omsk State Technical University Publishing House, 2014. - 104 p.
10. Nasser, S.S. Model, methodology and algorithms for automated assessment of occupational risks in production: abstract of thesis. dis. Ph.D. tech. Sciences / S. S. Nasser. - St. Petersburg. : SPBGETU "LETI", 2015. - 18 p.
11. Development of "Methods for calculating individual professional risk depending on working conditions and the employee's health" and "Methods for calculating the integral indicator of the level of professional risk in an organization" / N. F. Izmerov [et al.] // M.: Reinfor, 2014 . -pp. 132-162.12. Acting order Minister for Investment and Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 26, 2014 No. 300 "On approval of the Rules for determining the general level of hazard of a hazardous production facility." Order of the Minister of Investment and Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 26, 2014 No. 300 / Information and legal system of regulatory legal acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan // adilet.zan.kz: [website]. — URL: https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/V1400010242 (access date: 02/11/2022).
13. Bondar, V. A. Reliability and risk management in the system of expert decision making / V. A. Bondar // Izvestia MSTU MAMI. - 2013. - T. 2, No. 3 (17). — pp. 145-154.
14. Belov, S. V. Life safety and environmental protection (technosphere safety) / S. V. Belov. — 5th ed., revised. and additional - Moscow: Yurayt Publishing House, 2017. - 702 p.
