The results of studies of frequent violations of mandatory requirements in the field of activity of the Federal Environmental, Industrial and Nuclear Supervision Service for the period 2016–2022 are presented. The main approaches used to analyze data in this area, which are found in the domestic and international practice, are described. Using the methods of structuring the collected materials considering the division into groups and subgroups in accordance with a certain criterion presented in the source data, and arranging the data in the required order, the causes and types of identified violations are investigated. The enlarged groups of violations detected by different types of state supervision (in the field of nuclear energy use, energy supervision, construction supervision, industrial safety supervision) are identified. The purpose of the study is to systematize open data for the period of 2016–2022 for the subsequent identification of the distribution of the number of recorded cases of violations in various sections — according to the severity of the consequences, as a percentage of detected violations by enlarged groups of violations. When checking the data for compliance with the Pareto rule, it is shown that, on the one hand, 13 % of the detected types of violations of mandatory requirements lead to 80 % of the total number of violations detected, on the other hand, 13.3 % of the main causes of violations also lead to 80 % of the total number of violations detected. The parameters of the presented open data are identified, the completion of which can lead to a refinement of the obtained values in the analysis of the identified violations, as well as the key types of violations, for which there are no well-developed methods for assessing the risk of consequences and the severity of negative consequences.
2. Travadel S., Guarnieri F., Portelli A. Industrial Safety and Utopia: Insights from the Fukushima Daiichi Accident. Risk Analysis. 2018. Vol. 38. Iss. 1. pp. 56–70. DOI: 10.1111/risa.12821
3. Mendeloff J., Gray W.B., Armour P., Neuhauser F. The re-occurrence of violations in occupational safety and health administration inspections. Regulation & Governance. 2020. 15 (4). DOI: 10.1111/rego.12315
4. Hingorani R., Tanner P. Risk-Informed Requirements for Design and Assessment of Structures Under Temporary Use. Risk Analysis. 2020. 40 (1). pp. 68–82. DOI: 10.1111/risa.13322
5. Zhang T., Liu Z., Zheng S., Qu X., Tao D. Predicting Errors, Violations, and Safety Participation Behavior at Nuclear Power Plants. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020. 17 (15). DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17155613
6. Nyberg E.P., Nicholson A.E., Korb K.B., Wybrow M., Zukerman I., Mascaro S., Thakur S., Oshni Alvandi A., Riley J., Pearson R., Morris S., Herrmann M., Azad A.K.M., Bolger F., Hahn U., Lagnado D. BARD: A Structured Technique for Group Elicitation of Bayesian Networks to Support Analytic Reasoning. Risk Analysis. 2022. 42 (6). pp. 1155–1178. DOI: 10.1111/risa.13759
7. Moiseev T.D., Garipova S.T. Water use and ecosystem services: a case of Russia. Environmental Dynamics and Global Climate Change. 2022. Vol. 13. № 2. pp. 60–69. DOI 10.18822/edgcc105930
8. Wu D., Lambert J.H. Engineering Systems and Risk Analytics. Risk Analysis. 2020. Vol. 40. № 1. pp. 1–7. DOI: 10.1111/risa.13433
9. Large Industrial Accidents: Hazards, Threats, Challenges. Bezopasnost Truda v Promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2010. № 6. pp. 48–49. (In Russ.).
10. Broughton E. The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: a review. Environmental Health. 2005. № 4. DOI: 10.1186/1476-069X-4-6
11. Malyshev A. Main activities of the Federal environmental, industrial and nuclear supervision service on radiation and ecological safety assurance. Radiation and Environmental Safety in North-West Russia. 2006. pp. 5–7. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-4649-9_2
12. Shiroyama H. Nuclear Safety Regulation in Japan and Impacts of the Fukushima Daiichi Accident. Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-319-12090-4_14.pdf?pdf=inline%20link (accessed: May 17, 2023).
13. Wheatley S., Sovacool B., Sornette D. Of Disasters and Dragon Kings: A Statistical Analysis of Nuclear Power Incidents and Accidents. Risk Analysis. 2016. 37 (1). pp. 99–115. DOI: 10.1111/risa.12587
14. Robert G. Batson. The Role of Maintenance in Reducing the Risk of Technological Disasters. Journal of Civil Engineering Research & Technology. 2021. Vol. 3 (2). DOI: 10.47363/JCERT/2021(3)118
15. Barbin N.M., Titov S.A., Kobelev A.M. Analysis of Accidents and Incidents What Happened at Nuclear Power Plants in Russia from 1992 to 2019. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2022. DOI 10.1088/1755-1315/988/2/022026
16. Strygina M.A., Gritsuk I.I Hydrological safety and risk assessment of hydraulic structures. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Inzhenernye issledovaniya = RUDN Journal of Engineering Researches. 2018. Vol. 19. № 3. pp. 317–324. (In Russ.). DOI 10.22363/2312-8143-2018-19-3-317-324
17. Feinstein J.S. The Safety Regulation of U.S. Nuclear Power Plants: Violations, Inspections, and Abnormal Occurrences. Journal of Political Economy. 1989. Vol. 97. pp. 115–154.
18. Temasova G.N., Vergazova Yu.G., Leonov D.O Using the Pareto Diagram to Estimate Internal Losses During Engine Repairs. Agroinzheneriya = Agroengineering. 2020. № 6 (100). pp. 44–49. (In Russ.). DOI 10.26897/2687-1149-2020-6-44-49