Risk assessment on a construction site is based on the probability and consequences of the accident. But due to the complexity of the construction processes, this new methodology for the evaluation of occupational risks, called Level of Preventive Action, develops a new parameter for evaluating preventive action based on documentary environment that reflects the complexity of the work units, location and interdependence, construction environment referred to construction and protection systems, and social environment relative to the perception of the environment and the workers’ emotional states. The evaluation criteria of the new method are established by developing the William T. Fine methodology and incorporating concepts such as risk tolerance, the importance of work and personal satisfaction, which justify the degree of correction of preventive actions. This methodology determines the amount of preventive action control that is required during the construction process. This research proposes a risk assessment protocol adapted to construction sites based on specialized technical observation with a psychosocial survey on site. Some results of the implementation of the method in real work are shown. In conclusion, the determining parameter towards optimal control of preventive action is the direct and active participation of workers in safety matters.

No abstract

This paper studies the possibility of using the following occupational risk assessment methods for construction works: INSHT, ANACT, THREP, SHERPA, RNUR, EVENT TREE, LEST, FINE, ERGONOMIC ANALYSIS and PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS. Of these methods, INSHT, ANACT, RNUR and FINE have been selected with the objective of applying them to real building works, in order to determine the discrepancies in the results obtained compared to the risks analyzed. The results make it possible to ascertain the types of risk which each method most reliably detects, there being methods which are not able to detect extreme or very low risks. It is concluded that if a single risk assessment method is used, the results do not entirely reflect reality, as such it is necessary to establish a new risk assessment methodology for construction works.Key words: Prevention, safety at work, methodology, risk assessment, construction. ResumenEn este trabajo se ha estudiado la posibilidad de emplear para obras de construcción los siguientes métodos de evaluación de riesgos laborales: INSHT, ANACT, THREP, SHERPA, RNUR, ÁRBOL DE SUCESOS, LEST, FINE, ANÁLISIS ERGONÓMICO Y FACTORES PSICOSOCIALES. De estos métodos se han seleccionado: INSHT, ANACT, RNUR y FINE con el objetivo de aplicarlos en obras reales para comprobar las discrepancias en los resultados obtenidos frente a los mismos riesgos analizados. Los resultados permiten comprobar los tipos de riesgo que cada método detecta con más fiabilidad, existiendo métodos que no son capaces de detectar riesgos extremos o muy bajos. Se concluye que si se emplea un único método de evaluación de riesgos los resultados no reflejan en su totalidad la realidad, por lo que es necesario establecer una nueva metodología de evaluación de riesgos en obras de construcción.Palabras clave: Prevención, seguridad en el trabajo, metodología, evaluación de riesgos, construcción.

Risk assessment is a legal obligation for all companies in most countries worldwide. It aims to control the quality of working conditions and avoid externalizing the consequences of accidents and resulting costs to society. This work discusses the need for an adequate interpretation of the zero-risk concept from a technical-preventive perspective to assess occupational risks in construction sites. A critical analysis of several risk assessment methodologies was carried out, focusing on the evaluation criteria of little or no-risk situations. The verification of the results was made through a case study. The perception of health and safety risks by workers is very different from that of the evaluators. Often, when workers identify a situation as low-risk or even zero-risk, the evaluator assesses the same context as maximum risk. Given the workers’ and the evaluators’ responses, the Preventive Action Method establishes a new parameter, the Environment Congruence. This parameter is based on the perception of the preventive environment and gives more importance to the evaluators’ decision. When preventive action is optimal, the risk is low in all preventive observation settings. In conclusion, this study justifies the non-nullity of the risk and the difficulty of assessing zero-risk in construction sites. Therefore, evaluations with qualitative and quantitative non-risk approaches should be discarded.

The special circumstances of the high accident rate in the construction industry compared to other sectors are significant and represent a major concern for many countries. Construction work involves a large number of risks that cause or may cause accidents with serious consequences for the worker’s health, even death. The Level of Preventive Action is a novel methodology of occupational risk assessment adapted to building works. It is based on the development of the mathematical formulation of William T. Fine’s method. Its implementation covers four of the techniques for combating risk: Safety at Work, Industrial Hygiene, Ergonomics and Psychosociology. It evaluates, quantitatively, the amount of preventive action required based on the characteristic complexity of the work units, their location and their interdependence. The method protocol defines a new observation parameter called Characteristic Value which is inherent to the real situation of the construction process. The aim of this study is to develop the characterisation of the Characteristic Value in the Level of Preventive Action method. It also justifies the procedure to obtain this Characteristic Value and how its implementation and result should be interpreted. Finally, the methodology is applied on a real case.