Prospects for the application of the industrial facility ranking method to assess radiation and chemical risks to public health and the environment

Classification and ranking of potentially hazardous chemical facilities and contaminated territories are urgent and important tasks in the field of risk management and environmental protection. The presented tasks arise in connection with the need to make decisions on increasing control over hazardous production facilities, as well as optimizing resources and reducing negative environmental impacts, which makes it possible to identify facilities with the greatest potential for danger and strengthen control over them, which contributes to improving the safety of employees, society and the environment.

The study aims to substantiate the possibilities of using the method of ranking potentially dangerous chemical and radiation facilities based on literature data to assess their impact on public health and the environment.

The scientists have conducted a systematic review of scientific data to substantiate methodological approaches and criteria necessary for ranking potentially dangerous chemical and radiation facilities in order to assess their risk to public health and the environment from bibliographic databases Scopus, MedLine, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, RSCI.

The results of the research have made it possible to determine the specifics of accounting for the impact of industrial facilities on the environment and human health applicable to pilot facilities and territories, the possibilities of ranking activities by risk levels are shown, allowing to identify the most critical sectors and processes requiring special attention and regulation. The approaches to creating a unified information and analytical system that takes into account the impact of the environment on health are substantiated, which will make it possible to purposefully develop comprehensive programs for the prevention of morbidity in the population and assess the impact of harmful combined effects of environmental factors on health. The authors have presented criteria for the preliminary ranking of potential carcinogens (total annual emissions, weight coefficient of carcinogenic effect.

In the course of their work, the scientists showed the possibilities of ranking activities by risk levels, which make it possible to identify the most critical sectors and processes that require special attention and regulation. They also presented criteria for preliminary ranking of potential carcinogens (the amount of total annual emissions, the weight coefficient of the carcinogenic effect.

Ethics. This study did not require the conclusion of an Ethics Committee.

Limitations. Given that this study was conducted on the basis of theoretical literature data, three pilot territories are not sufficient for its practical application. In the future, it is planned to expand the number of objects and territories for ranking.

Contributions:
Ushakova O.V. — research concept and design, data collection and processing, text writing, manuscript preparation;
Evseeva I.S. — concept and design of the research, writing of the text, preparation of the manuscript;
Vodyanova M.A. — data collection and processing, text writing, manuscript preparation;
Sabirova Z.F. — data collection and processing, text writing, manuscript preparation;
Yudin S.M. — the concept and design of research, preparation of the manuscript.

Funding. The study had no funding.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Received: 23.01.2025 / Accepted: 26.02.2025 / Published: 07.04.2025

1. List of indicators and data for the formation of the Federal Information Fund for Social and Hygienic Monitoring Order of Rospotrebnadzor dated December 30, 2005, No. 810 (as amended on June 19, 2017).

2. Kolosnicyna M.G., Chubarov M.Yu. Socio-economic factors of mortality from infectious diseases in Russian regions. Sotsial'nye aspekty zdorov'ya naseleniya. 2021; 67(5): 2. https://www.hse.ru/ma/economicanalysis/news/532620843 (in Russian).

3. Essien Etido. Impacts of governance toward sustainable urbanization in a midsized city: A case study of Uyo, Nigeria. Land. 2021; 11(1): 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010037

4. Guan W., Liu Q., Dong C. Risk assessment method for industrial accident consequences and human vulnerability in urban areas. Journal of loss prevention in the process industries. 2022; 76: 104745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2022.104745

5. Bezborodova O.E., Bodin O.N., Svetlov A.V. Assessment of Industry-Related Risks for Human Environmental Well-Being. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Construction, Architecture and Technosphere Safety: ICCATS 2021. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022.

6. Popova A.Ju., Zajceva N.V., Maj I.V. On the issue of implementing assessment of the quality of life of the population into the system of social and hygienic monitoring. Analiz riska zdorov'ju. 2018; (3), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.21668/health.risk/2018.3 (in Russian).

7. Bukhtiyarov I.V., Denisov Je.I., Lagutina G.N., Pfaf V.F., Chesalin P.V., Stepanjan I.V. Criteria and algorithms for establishing a connection between health disorders and work. Russian Journal of Occupational Health and Industrial Ecology. 2018; (8): 4–12. https://doi.org/10.31089/1026-9428-2018-8-4-12 (in Russian).

8. Grevcov O.V., Kostyleva, V.M., Maljavin A.S., Gruzdev E.E. Expert support for the transition to the principles of the best available technologies in the chemical industry. Himicheskaja bezopasnost'. 2019; 3(2): 219–230 (in Russian).

9. Manturov D.V. Transition to the best available technologies in the aspect of modern industrial policy of the Russian Federation. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Serija 6. Jekonomika. 2018; 4: 25–34 (in Russian).

10. Рichugin E.A., D'jakov M.S., Zyrjanova E.V., Solov'eva A.S. Analytical review of standard technological solutions used in the elimination of objects of accumulated environmental harm. Astrahanskij vestnik jekologicheskogo obrazovanija. 2022; 5 (71): 20-32 https://doi.org/10.36698/2304-5957-2022-5- 20-32 (in Russian).

11. Nikitina E.N. Environmental requirements for ensuring chemical safety in the development of industrial technologies. Jekologija i promyshlennost' Rossii. 2017; 21(5): 57–63. https://doi.org/10.18412/1816-0395-2017-5-57-63

12. Bulatov V.I., Igenbaeva N.O., Kuzmenkov S.G., Isaev V.I., Ajupov R.Sh. Ecological and geographical problems of the Russian oil and gas complex in the megaecology system. Geografija i prirodnye resursy. 2020; 60(1): 33–40 (in Russian).

13. Wu L., Yang M., Wang C. Strategic interaction of environmental regulation and its influencing mechanism: Evidence of spatial effects among Chinese cities. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021; 312: 127668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127668

14. Zajceva N.V., Zemljanova M.A., Maj I.V., Alekseev V.B., Trusov P.V., Hrushheva E.V. et al. omprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of mitigation of harm to health based on the theory of fuzzy sets when planning air protection measures. Analiz riska zdorov'ju. 2020; (1): 25–37. https://elibrary.ru/cueyva (in Russian).

15. Vázquez V.L., Rodríguez G., Daddi T., De Giacomo M.R., Polders C., Dils E. Policy challenges in transferring the integrated pollution prevention and control approach to Southern Mediterranean countries: a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015; 107: 486–97.

16. Eom S.Y., Choi J., Bae S., Lim J.A., Kim G.B., Yu S.D. Kim Y., Lim H.S., Son B.S., Paek D., Kim Y.D. Health effects of environmental pollution in population living near industrial complex areas in Korea. Environmental health and toxicology. 2018; 33(1). https://doi.org/10.5620/eht.e2018004

17. Nowacki K. Accident risk in the production sector of EU countries — cohort studies. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2021; 18(7): 3618 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073618

18. Guidance on integrated environmental permitting systems for EECCA countries. https://www.oecd.org/environment/outreach/35057702.pdf

19. Kudrjavceva O.V., Ledashheva T.N., Pinaev V.E. Methodology and practice of assessing environmental impact. Proektnaja dokumentacija. Izdanie 3-e, ispravlennoe i dopolnennoe. M., 2023 (in Russian).

20. Burmatova O.P. Methodology and tools for analyzing environmental and economic aspects of regional development. Pod red. A.S. Novoselova. — Novosibirsk: IJeOPP SO RAN; 2021: 442 (in Russian).

21. Jashalova N.N., Ruban D.A. Indicators for assessing environmental and economic sustainability. Vestnik tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2023; 64: 35–49 (in Russian).

22. Zajceva N.V., Klejn S.V., Maj I.V., Savochkina A.A., Kir'janov D.A., Kamaltdinov M.R. et al. Risk to public health and the effectiveness of measures to improve the quality of drinking water in centralized water supply systems. Gigiena i sanitarija. 2022; 101(11): 1403–1411. https://doi.org/10.47470/0016-9900-2022-101-11-1403-1411 (in Russian).

23. Pichugin E.A., et al. Actual problems of identification, accounting, categorization and elimination of objects of accumulated environmental damage. Problemy regional'noj jekologii. 2021; 6: 113–121 (in Russian).

24. Gorchakov V., Zagorodnih P., Panicheva S. Ecological ranking of regions. Sustainable development. Ustojchivoe razvitie. Analiticheskij kommentarij — AKRA. 2023: 14. https://clck.ru/3Gn4uZ (in Russian).