Author 1:
Name & Surname: Pototsky E. P.
Company: National University of Science and Technology—MISiS (Moscow, Russia)
Work Position: Professor, Technosphere Safety Department
Scientific Degree: Candidate of Engineering Sciences
Contacts: pep@disto.misis.ru

Author 2:
Name & Surname: Zavodnova V. M.
Company: National University of Science and Technology—MISiS (Moscow, Russia)
Work Position: Postgraduate student

It is currently necessary to develop assessment procedure for occupational risks, including risk of occupational disease incidence, taking into account, first of all, labor conditions of an employee’s work area, namely, the combined impact of physical and chemical hazards as well as severity and heaviness of labor. This is connected with that in a working environment, a man is subjected to multi-factor impact that is much heavier than impact of an individual adverse factor. The article analyzes labor conditions of a numerically controlled machine tool’s operator, reveals harmful and hazardous industrial effects and undertakes a correlation–regression analysis of occupational disease incidence depending on labor conditions. The relationships between the disease incidence and industrial hazard with and without accounting for labor severity and heaviness are compared. With the aim to define the quality of the analysis per each adverse factor, the coefficients of elasticity Э, determination R² and multivariable correlation R have been calculated. The authors compare the occupational risk level for a numerically controlled machine tool’s operator in accordance with the standard procedure (Guiding Document 2.2.1766-03) and the procedure of assessment of the combined adversity impact based on integral numerical score. Judging from the comparative analysis outcome, it can be concluded that the procedure accounting for the combined adversity impact of industrial hazards provides more reliable (as against the standard procedure) assessment of occupational risk and enables firm managerial decision-making on reduction of occupational hazard and improvement of working conditions.

1. Available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_164535/ (in Russian)
2. R 2.2.1766-03. Rukovodstvo po otsenke professionalnogo riska dlya zdorovya rabotnikov. Organizatsionno-metodicheskie osnovy, printsipy i kriterii otsenki (Guidance 2.2.1766-03. Giidance for assessment of professional risk for workers' health. Organisational-methodic basis, principles and criteria of assessment). Byulleten normativnykh i metodicheskikh dokumentov Gossanepidnadzora = Bulletin of normative and methodical documents of Russian Federation Oversight Committee for Sanitation and Epidemiology. 2004. No. 2. (in Russian)
3. R 2.2.2006-05. Rukovodstvo po gigienicheskoy otsenke faktorov rabochey sredy i trudovogo protsessa. Kriterii i klassifikatsiya usloviy truda (Guidance 2.2.2006-05. Guidance for hygienic assessment of factors of working environment and labor process. Criterion and classification of labor conditions). Byulleten normativnykh i metodicheskikh dokumentov Gossanepidnadzora = Bulletin of normative and methodical documents of Russian Federation Oversight Committee for Sanitation and Epidemiology. 2005. No. 3. (in Russian)
4. Gorskaya T. V., Pototskiy E. P. Otsenka usloviy truda v metallurgicheskikh tsekhakh (Assessment of labor conditions in metallurgical shops). Metallurg = Russian metallurgist. 2006. No. 4. pp. 41–42.