Annals of the Academy of Romanian Scientists

Series on Engineering Sciences

ISSN 2066-6950

Volume 18, Number 1/2026

100

ASSESSING THE LEVEL OF SAFETY AT WORK.

APPLICATION: LIGHTING, NOISE, VIBRATIONS,

THERMAL ENVIRONMENT, CHEMICAL AGENTS

Costica BEJINARIU¹, Doru Costin DARABONT², Lucian Ionel CIOCA³

Rezumat. Metoda de evaluare a nivelului de securitate la locul de muncă începe un docu-

ment care conține descrierea companiei – denumire, locație, activitate principală, organi-

gramă etc., descrierea sistemului de lucru și o scurtă descriere a metodei. Se continuă cu

un document Microsoft Excel, care reprezintă aplicarea concretă a metodei și, în final,

există un alt document care prezintă concluzii, propuneri și prioritizări, ceea ce duce la

executarea Planului de Prevenire și Protecție la locul de muncă. Lucrarea abordează pro-

blema elaborării documentului Microsoft Excel, parte esențială a metodei de evaluare a

nivelului de securitate la locul de muncă. Documentul este împărțit într-un număr variabil

de fișe de lucru, care prezintă categoriile de risc.

Abstract. The method for assessing the level of security at work begins with a document

containing the description of the company – name, location, main activity, organizational

chart, etc., a description of the work system and a brief description of the method. It con-

tinues with a Microsoft Excel document, which represents the concrete application of the

method and, finally, there is another document that presents conclusions, proposals and

prioritizations, which leads to the execution of the Prevention and Protection Plan at work.

The paper addresses the issue of developing the Microsoft Excel document, an essential

part of the method for assessing the level of security at work. The document is divided into

a variable number of worksheets, which present the risk categories.

Keywords: health and safety at work; general risks; lighting; noise; vibrations; thermal environ-

ment; chemical agents

DOI

10.56082/annalsarscieng.2026.1.100

1. Introduction

The method for assessing the level of safety at work was developed by a

team of researchers from the National Research and Development Institute for Oc-

cupational Safety - INCDPM "Alexandru Darabont" Bucharest [1]. In 2017, the

¹Professor Emeritus, PhD, Eng., Materials Engineering and Industrial Safety Department, Faculty

of Materials Science and Engineering, Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi, Iasi, Romania,

Corresponding

Member

of

the

Romanian

Academy

of

Scientists

(e-mail:

costica.bejinariu@gmail.com ).

²PhD, Eng., Senior Researcher, The National Research and Development Institute of Occupational

Safety - "Alexandru Darabont", Bucharest, Romania (e-mail: darabont_d@yahoo.com ).

³Professor, PhD, Eng., Dr h. c. mult., Industrial Engineering and Management Department, Faculty

of Engineering, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Full Member of the Romanian Academy of

Scientists (e-mail: lucian.cioca@ulbsibiu.ro ).

Assessing the Level of Safety at Work. Application:

Lighting, Noise, Vibrations, Thermal Environment, Chemical Agents

101

method was improved to facilitate its application [2]. This method was developed

to assess the level of safety at each workplace in a company in order to avoid occu-

pational accidents. The method covers all types of workplaces: fixed, evolving and

itinerant [3-5].

In order to carry out a work process, the work system is essential, which is

defined by specific components: the Work Load considered as the independent

component of the work system and on which the other components depend, which

are the Worker, the Work Means / Work Equipment and the Work Environment by

Workplaces / Workstations [6-8]. Each component of the work system can generate

a smaller or larger share of risks that can lead to work accidents and occupational

diseases [9-11].

The assessment of the level of safety at work is usually preceded by a self-

assessment of occupational safety through a qualitative assessment and a quantita-

tive assessment of the components of the work system [12-16]. This self-assessment

is the document on the basis of which the designated worker requests financial,

material or other resources from the company management in order to eliminate or

reduce certain hazards or risks, the application of the method being necessary for

the assessment of the risks of occupational accidents and diseases [17-20].

According to the Law on Safety and Health at Work No. 319/2006 [21] and

Government Decision No. 1425/2006 – Methodological Norms for the Application

of the Law on Safety and Health at Work [22], the employer is obliged to implement

the following measures: avoiding risks; assessing risks that cannot be avoided; com-

bating risks at source; adapting work to the person, especially in terms of designing

work positions, choosing work equipment, work and production methods, in order

to reduce the monotony of work, work at a predetermined pace and to reduce their

effects on health; adapting to technical progress; replacing what is dangerous with

what is not dangerous or with what is less dangerous; developing a coherent pre-

vention policy that includes technologies, work organization, working conditions,

social relations and the influence of factors in the work environment; adopting, as

a priority, collective protection measures over individual protection measures;

providing appropriate instructions to workers.

Next, the paper is structured into a series of sections that present: the evalu-

ation method; the application of the method for general risk elements, namely light-

ing, noise, vibrations, thermal environment and chemical agents; discussions and

conclusions.

2. Assessment Method

The method of assessing the level of security has the following application

stages: identification of hazards, identification of workers exposed to hazards, qual-

itative and quantitative estimation of risks and analysis of the possibilities of elim-

inating or reducing the risk. The aim is to delimit and characterize the object to be

102

Costica Bejinariu, Doru Costin Darabont, Lucian Ionel Cioca

assessed – enterprise, sector, section, workshop, workplace – following the four

components of the work system [1].

The method for assessing the level of safety at work has three sets of check-

lists: checklists for "General risks" namely Lighting, Noise, Vibration, Thermal en-

vironment, Chemical agents, Carcinogenic and mutagenic agents, Biological

agents, Industrial ventilation, Work equipment, Workplace layout, Work space lay-

out, Fire and explosions, Electrical safety, Work load; Horizontal and vertical risk

circulation, Collective and individual protection, First aid organization; checklists

for "Specific risks" namely a number of "n" checklists; checklists for "Evaluation

of occupational health and safety management".

Fig. 1. “NS Ratings” Worksheet.

Each checklist contains a brief description of the risk, indicators that allow

the characterization of the risk, and qualitative and/or quantitative information

about each specific risk. A checklist for “Lighting” is presented in the paper “Con-

siderations on Applying the Method for Assessing the Level of Safety at Work” [2].

Each checklist contains a series of indicators, in the form of questions. De-

pending on the specific conditions of the workplace, the evaluator assigns a score

between 0 and 5, integers. There are also situations in which some indicators are

not applicable to the workplace. If an indicator is applicable, the value “1” is as-

signed in the corresponding column, and if it is not applicable, the value “0”. Each

indicator has a certain importance in terms of the severity and frequency of work

Assessing the Level of Safety at Work. Application:

Lighting, Noise, Vibrations, Thermal Environment, Chemical Agents

103

accidents or occupational diseases, so it is weighted with a coefficient, with values

between 0.5 and 2.0, according to the occupational safety assessment guide [1].

Fig. 2. Worksheet “I-Lighting”.

For each indicator, the actual score is obtained by multiplying the given

score by the weighting coefficient, and the maximum possible score is obtained by

multiplying the maximum score by the weighting coefficient. Finally, for each

checklist, the actual total score and the maximum possible total score are calculated.

The security level can thus be obtained as the percentage ratio between the actual

total score and the maximum possible total score. Depending on the security level

obtained for each checklist, the corresponding ratings are assigned, Figure 1. An

example of a simplified checklist is given in Figure 2.

104

Costica Bejinariu, Doru Costin Darabont, Lucian Ionel Cioca

3. Application: Lighting, Noise, Vibrations, Thermal Environ-

ment, Chemical Agents

The objective of this chapter is to develop an applied study to evaluate the

level of occupational safety, for the sheets referring to Lighting, Noise, Vibrations,

Thermal Environment, Chemical Agents, of the workplace "Plastic Deformation

Laboratory", also called work system, within the Faculty of Materials Science and

Engineering of the "Gheorghe Asachi" Technical University of Iași.

Regarding the specifics of the works that take place within the work process

carried out in this work system, we must mention that the activities that take place

in this area are of a didactic nature and are carried out sporadically. Among these,

we mention some of the planned didactic works that are carried out in this labora-

tory, such as: determining the heating and cooling regime of forgeable materials;

determining the technological parameters for pressing by free mechanical forging;

verifying the law of minimum resistance; determining the technological parameters

for rolling; determining the cold drawing capacity of thin sheets.

In the worksheet referring to Lighting – Table 1, Noise – Table 2, Vibrations

– Table 3, Thermal Environment – Table 4 and Chemical Agents – Table 5, we

have the following abbreviations: Ap – Applicability; Un – Unsatisfactory; Me –

Medium; V.g. – Very good; W.c. – Weighting coefficient; P_ri– Real score; P_mi–

Maximum possible score.

Table 1. Checklist (worksheet) I – LIGHTING

Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi

Department of Materials Engineering and Industrial Safety

Plastic deformation laboratory

Assessor (Evaluator)

Name and surname

yyyy-mm-dd

Checklist (worksheet) I - LIGHTING

Criteria:

1. Health and safety law, no. 319/2006.

2. Methodological specifications for the application of health and safety law no. 319/2006.

3. Government Decision no. 20191/16.08.2006 on minimum safety and health requirements for

the workplace.

Awarded score

No. Indicator

Were lighting conditions subject

Ap. Un

0

Me

2

V.g.

4

W.c. P_ri

P_mi

1

3

5

I.1 to review by the department or

production unit?

Does the level of workplace light-

I.2 ing meet the work task require-

ments?

1.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

6.0

4.0

10.0

5.0

4.0

Assessing the Level of Safety at Work. Application:

Lighting, Noise, Vibrations, Thermal Environment, Chemical Agents

105

Do employees complain of eye-

strain (punctures, tearing)?

Are light sources or their reflec-

I.3

0.0

1.0

1.5

1.0

0.0

4.0

3.0

0.0

I.4 tions visible in the center of the

workplace visual field?

4.0

5.0

Have measures been taken to

avoid areas of shade?

I.5

3.0

Does the lighting system corre-

spond to the workplace characteris-

tics?

uniform general lighting is used where

similar activities are performed all over the

surface of the room or when the position of

the workplace or the position of the em-

ployee frequently changes during work;

local general lighting is used for work-

places that need different lighting levels

and the use of local lighting is not possible;

I.6

I.7

1.0

4.0

2.0

8.0

10.0

combined lighting is used for workplaces

that need different lighting levels and the

use of general lighting cannot ensure ade-

quate quality requirements.

Can employees individually

change their workplace lighting,

according to the precision of the

task they must undertake?

4.0

1.0

4.0

5.0

Can employees easily receive in-

I.8 formation necessary for complet- 1.0

ing their tasks?

Are the work tasks causing visual

I.9 system strain made by the same

employees?

Are errors, defects, scrap more

I.10 frequent at the end of the work

shift/week?

5.0 1.5

1.0

7.5

4.0

1.5

7.5

5.0

2.5

1.0

3.0

0.5

Are scheduled breaks observed

during the shift?

Is the artificial lighting system al-

ways working?

Is regular cleaning of the windows

provided (to ensure natural lighting)?

Is there an emergency lighting sys-

tem?

I.11

1.0

5.0 1.0

5.0 1.5

1.0

5.0

7.5

4.0

3.0

5.0

7.5

5.0

I.12

I.13

4.0

I.14

3.0

1.0

After making some changes in the

I.15 lighting system, has the lighting

level been checked?

1.0

5.0 2.0

10.0 10.0

71.5 87.5

Total P_rIşi P_mI

Real score: P_rI= 71.5

Maximum possible score: P_mI= 87.5

Security level: N_sI= 81.71 %

Rating: Safety level, Very good

106

Costica Bejinariu, Doru Costin Darabont, Lucian Ionel Cioca

Table 2. Checklist (worksheet) II - NOISE

Gheorghe Asachi Technical Universiry of Iasi

Department of Materials Engineering and Industrial Safety

Plastic deformation laboratory

Assessor (Evaluator)

Name and surname

yyyy-mm-dd

Checklist (worksheet) II - NOISE

Criteria:

1. Health and safety law, no. 319/2006.

2. Methodological specifications for the application of health and safety law no. 319/2006.

3. Government Decision no. 493/12.04.2006 on the minimum health and safety requirements re-

garding the exposure of workers to the risks generated by noise.

4. Government Decision no. 1048/09.08.2006 on the minimum health and safety requirements for

the use of personal protective equipment by workers at the workplace.

Awarded score

No. Indicator

Ap. Un

0

Me

2

V.g.

4

W.c. P_ri

P_mi

1

3

5

It is done noise level measure-

II.1 ments, periodically and after

changes in the workplace?

1.0

0.0

3.0

2.0

6.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

Noise level measured exceed lim-

II.2

its maxim admitted?

Employees and/or representatives

their participates in the determina-

tions and noise measurements car-

ried out?

Employer ensure keeping noise

II.3

1.0

4.0

2.0

1.5

8.0

6.0

10.0

7.5

II.4 measurement reports and sheets re- 1.0

garding state hearing employees?

The doctor, the employees and/or

II.5 representatives do they have ac-

cess to this data?

1.0

5.0 2.0

10.0 10.0

At work where exposure staff

daily routine of a employee ex-

ceeds 80dB(A) or when value

maximum pressure acoustic in-

II.6 stant unweighted is greater than

112 Pa, were taken measures that

employees saddle have at one's

disposal means personal protec-

tive equipment auditory?

At work where exposure staff

daily noise exceeds 85dB(A) or

where value maximum pressure

II.7 acoustic instant unweighted ex-

ceeds 140 Pa was imposed com-

pulsory use means personal pro-

tective equipment auditory?

0.0

2.0

0.0

2.0

Assessing the Level of Safety at Work. Application:

Lighting, Noise, Vibrations, Thermal Environment, Chemical Agents

107

For these jobs were undertaken

the following actions: identifica-

tion causes noise level raised; es-

II.8 tablishment a program of

measures technical and organiza-

tional reduction a exposure em-

ployees to noise?

0.0

2.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

Employees have PPE available

against the noise?

II.9

1.0

4.0

2.0

10.0

Employees used correctly and cur-

rent PPE provided?

II.10

5.0 2.0

10.0 10.0

Is the quality of the PPE appropri-

ate? PPE must be certified, and

the purchase is made only to-

II.11 gether with the certificate of con- 1.0

formity. PPE must ensure a noise

level at the person's ear below

80dB(A).

3.0

2.0

6.0

10.0

Employees and/or representatives

II.12 they are consulted in the choice

the PPE model?

1.0

4.0

2.0

8.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

At work where exposure staff

daily noise a employees cannot be

reduced below 85 dB(A ) is pro-

vided examination status hearing

II.13

0.0

personnel both in employment

how and periodically?

If the maximum permissible noise

limits have been exceeded, have

technical measures been taken to

reduce the harmful effects of

noise? measures to combat noise

at the source; measures to isolate

noise sources (sound-insulating

screens or enclosures); measures

to combat noise at the receiver

(sound-insulating booths).

II.14

0.0

1.0

1.5

0.0

Employees are trained regarding

II.15 risk exposure to the action noise

and how to use of PPE?

5.0 1.5

1.5

7.5

0.0

7.5

0.0

The work schedule for work sta-

II.16 tions was established in depending 0.0

on the duration exposure to noise?

They were taken. measures to pre-

II.17 vent the spread noise in the work- 0.0

place neighboring?

Any soundproofing devices they

II.18 may be equipped with some ma- 0.0

chinery or installations prevent

1.5

1.0

108

Costica Bejinariu, Doru Costin Darabont, Lucian Ionel Cioca

operators to have information re-

quired their proper functioning?

Total P_rIIşi P_mII

69.5 85.0

Real score: P_rII= 69.5

Maximum possible score: P_mII= 88.0

Security level: N_sII= 81.76 %

Rating: Safety level, Very good

Table 3. Checklist (worksheet) III - VIBRATIONS

Gheorghe Asachi Technical Universiry of Iasi

Department of Materials Engineering and Industrial Safety

Plastic deformation laboratory

Assessor (Evaluator)

Name and surname

yyyy-mm-dd

Checklist (worksheet) III - VIBRATIONS

Criteria:

1. Health and safety law, no. 319/2006.

2. Methodological specifications for the application of health and safety law no. 319/2006.

3. Government Decision no. 1876/22.11.2005 on the minimum health and safety requirements re-

garding the exposure of workers to the risks generated by vibrations.

4. Government Decision no. 1048/09.08.2006 on the minimum health and safety requirements for

the use of personal protective equipment by workers at the workplace.

Awarded score

No. Indicator

Ap. Un

0

Me

2

V.g.

4

W.c. P_ri

P_mi

1

3

5

Have vibration level measure-

III.1 ments been carried out at the

workplace by authorized persons?

Have measures been taken to en-

0.0

2.0

0.0

sure that vibration levels do not

III.2

0.0

exceed the limits permitted by

current legislation?

Does the employer have a vibra-

tion exposure risk assessment?

Do employees complain of pain

III.4 in their hand, wrist or shoulder

joints?

III.3

0.0

1.5

1.0

0.0

Is there evidence of training and

information for workers?

III.5

Is there evidence that the results

of medical surveillance are taken

into account when implementing

preventive measures?

Are vibration-generating vehicles

III.6

0.0

1.0

1.5

0.0

III.7

(trucks, tractors, self-propelled

Assessing the Level of Safety at Work. Application:

Lighting, Noise, Vibrations, Thermal Environment, Chemical Agents

109

carts, etc.) equipped with vibra-

tion-isolating seats?

Are portable tools equipped with

III.8 vibration-isolating handles or

sleeves?

0.0

1.5

1.0

1.5

0.0

Are portable tools checked for

dynamic balance?

III.9

0.0

Are vibration-generating ma-

III.10 chines and installations mounted 0.0

on vibration-isolating elements?

In the case of exposure to me-

chanical vibrations, have

measures been taken to eliminate

III.11

0.0

2.0

0.0

risks at source or to reduce them,

based on general principles of

prevention?

Total P_rIIIşi P_mIII

Real score: P_rIII= 0.0

Maximum possible score: P_mIII= 0.0

Security level: N_sIII= - %

Rating: -

Table 4. Checklist (worksheet) IV - THERMAL ENVIRONMENT

Gheorghe Asachi Technical Universiry of Iasi

Department of Materials Engineering and Industrial Safety

Plastic deformation laboratory

Assessor (Evaluator)

Name and surname

yyyy-mm-dd

Checklist (worksheet) IV - THERMAL ENVIRONMENT

Criteria:

1. Health and safety law, no. 319/2006.

2. Methodological specifications for the application of health and safety law no. 319/2006.

3. Government Decision no. 1091/16.08.2006 on the minimum health and safety requirements for

the workplace.

4. Government Decision no. 1048/09.08.2006 on the minimum health and safety requirements for

the use of personal protective equipment by workers at the workplace.

Awarded score

No. Indicator

Ap. Un

0

Me

2

V.g.

4

W.c. P_ri

P_mi

1

3

5

Are employees exposed to heat,

IV.1

IV.2

1.0

3.0

2.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

cold, drafts, or bad weather?

Do employees complain about

heat, cold, drafts, or bad weather?

Does their activity involve ther-

4.0

IV.3 mal problems (postural sweating, 1.0

etc.)?

5.0 2.0

10.0 10.0

110

Costica Bejinariu, Doru Costin Darabont, Lucian Ionel Cioca

Is there an efficient air condition-

ing system?

Is the air conditioning system

maintained regularly?

IV.4

IV.5

1.0

2.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

7.5

3.0

At the workplace analyzed, does

the work present discomfort in

terms of the thermal environ-

ment?

IV.6

1.0

2.0

1.5

3.0

7.5

At the workplace analyzed, are

IV.7 employees forced to be immo-

bile?

At the workplace analyzed, are

IV.8 employees frequently exposed to 1.0

sources of heat or cold?

4.0

1.0

4.0

7.5

5.0

7.5

5.0 1.5

At the workplace analyzed, are

employees required to handle ob-

jects that are not at ambient tem-

perature?

In the case of hot or cold environ-

ments, are employees provided

with appropriate personal protec-

tive equipment?

Does this equipment provide pro-

tection against existing risks?

Does this equipment allow the

IV.9

1.0

3.0

1.5

2.0

4.5

6.0

7.5

IV.10

IV.11

1.0

10.0

4.0

2.0

8.0

7.5

10.0

7.5

IV.12 performance of work tasks in ap- 1.0

propriate conditions?

5.0 1.5

At the workplace analyzed, are

employees exposed to sources of

heat radiation (ovens, open

flames, infrared, etc.)?

IV.13

1.0

3.0

1.5

4.5

7.5

Are there protection devices

against heat or cold sources?

Are breaks provided for in the

work organization system?

Do employees have access to a

room with a normal temperature?

Do employees have access to cold

or hot drinks?

IV.14

IV.15

IV.16

IV.17

1.0

4.0

2.0

5.0 1.0

0.5

8.0

5.0

2.0

6.0

10.0

5.0

4.0

2.5

1.5

7.5

Total P_rIVşi P_mIV

97.5 132.5

Real score: P_rIV= 97.5

Maximum possible score: P_mIV= 132.5

Security level: N_sIV= 73.58 %

Rating: Safety level, Good

Assessing the Level of Safety at Work. Application:

Lighting, Noise, Vibrations, Thermal Environment, Chemical Agents

111

Table 5. Checklist (worksheet) V - CHEMICAL AGENTS

Gheorghe Asachi Technical Universiry of Iasi

Department of Materials Engineering and Industrial Safety

Plastic deformation laboratory

Assessor (Evaluator)

Name and surname

yyyy-mm-dd

Checklist (worksheet) V - CHEMICAL AGENTS

Criteria:

1. Health and safety law, no. 319/2006.

2. Methodological specifications for the application of health and safety law no. 319/2006.

3. Government Decision no. 1875/22.12.2005 on the protection of workers' health and safety from

risks due to exposure to asbestos.

4. Government Decision no. 971/26.07.2006 on the minimum requirements for safety and/or

health signs at the workplace.

5. Government Decision no. 1048/09.08.2006 on the minimum health and safety requirements for

the use of personal protective equipment by workers at the workplace.

6. Government Decision no. 1091/16.08.2006 on the minimum health and safety requirements for

the workplace.

7. Government Decision no. 1218/06.09.2006 on establishing the minimum requirements for oc-

cupational health and safety to ensure the protection of workers against the risks related to the

presence of chemical agents.

8. Order 753/16.10.2006 on the protection of young people at work.

Awarded score

No. Indicator

Ap. Un

0

Me

2

V.g.

4

W.c. P_ri

P_mi

0.0

1

3

5

General. Is there a list of all haz-

ardous substances or products

used in the workplace being ana-

lyzed?

V.1

0.0

2.0

0.0

Are there instructions for use,

handling, storage and prevention

of the effects of the hazardous

substances or products used?

Are the toxic effects of these sub-

stances or products known?

Among the products with the

same effect, did the management

of the legal entity choose the least

dangerous one?

V.2

V.3

V.4

0.0

2.0

1.5

0.0

Have the persons who are the only

ones who can use or handle haz-

ardous substances or products

been specified?

V.5

0.0

2.0

0.0

Are employees complaining of

V.6 skin or mucous membrane irrita- 0.0

tion?

1.0

1.5

0.0

Are pictograms used for hazard-

V.7

0.0

ous substances and products?

112

V.8

Costica Bejinariu, Doru Costin Darabont, Lucian Ionel Cioca

Do employees who use the sub-

stances or products in question

know the meaning of the picto-

grams?

0.0

1.5

0.0

Are hazardous substances and

V.9 products received from suppliers 0.0

with their safety data sheets?

1.5

0.0

Are these records sent to the com-

V.10

0.0

pany doctor?

Are there facilities for capturing

(fixed or mobile hoods) and ex-

V.11 hausting vapors or dust generated 0.0

by hazardous substances or prod-

ucts?

1.5

0.0

Are these capture and disposal fa-

cilities properly maintained?

Are there places specially de-

V.12

0.0

2.0

1.5

0.0

V.13 signed for storing hazardous

waste?

0.0

Are there any operational facilities

V.14 for measuring hazardous concen- 0.0

trations?

1.5

2.0

1.5

0.0

Are there operational means for

V.15 preventing and extinguishing

fires?

0.0

Have appropriate measures been

V.16 taken to prevent and combat static 0.0

electricity?

Have appropriate measures been

V.17 taken to prevent sparks, hot sur-

faces, and unprotected flames?

Have measures been taken to re-

0.0

V.18 strict access to dangerous areas by 0.0

unauthorized persons?

Are health checks of employees

exposed to the effects of hazard-

ous substances carried out periodi-

cally?

Are employees who come into

contact with hazardous substances

V.19

0.0

1.5

2.0

0.0

V.20 and products equipped with ap-

propriate personal protective

equipment?

0.0

Are special procedures developed

V.21 for the treatment of hazardous

waste?

0.0

1.5

0.0

Is the circuit of hazardous sub-

V.22

stances and products precisely

Assessing the Level of Safety at Work. Application:

Lighting, Noise, Vibrations, Thermal Environment, Chemical Agents

113

known, at the department, work-

shop, and enterprise level?

What were the actions taken to de-

V.23 termine the existence of hazardous 0.0

chemical agents in the workplace?

Does the employer have an as-

1.5

2.0

0.0

sessment of the risks arising from

V.24

0.0

the presence of hazardous chemi-

cal agents in the workplace?

Have measures been taken to

eliminate or minimize risks to the

V.25 safety and health of employees in 0.0

work processes involving hazard-

ous chemical agents?

Has the possibility of avoiding the

use of a hazardous chemical agent

V.26 by replacing it with a less hazard- 0.0

ous chemical agent or technologi-

cal process been analyzed?

If the nature of the activity does

not allow the elimination of the

V.27 risk through substitution, are ap- 0.0

propriate prevention and protec-

tion measures applied?

2.0

1.5

0.0

Are there emergency plans and

procedures?

Are emergency plans and proce-

dures known to employees?

Are emergency plans and proce-

V.28

V.29

0.0

2.0

0.0

V.30 dures tested through periodic

practical exercises?

0.0

2.0

0.0

Emergency plans and procedures

include details regarding: limiting

employee access to the affected

V.31 area; providing PPE for employ- 0.0

ees who have access to the af-

fected area; warning and commu-

nication methods.

2.0

0.0

Are emergency plans and proce-

V.32 dures known to internal and exter- 0.0

nal emergency services?

Do employees and/or their repre-

sentatives have all the necessary

V.33 information regarding the hazard- 0.0

ous chemical agents they work

with?

2.0

0.0

Is the production or use of chemi-

V.34 cal agents listed in GD No.

1218/2006, Annex 3, carried out

0.0

114

Costica Bejinariu, Doru Costin Darabont, Lucian Ionel Cioca

only under the conditions pro-

vided for by the aforementioned

GD?

How is the health of workers

monitored?

Is the use of basic lead carbonate

(lead pencil), lead sulfate and lead

V.35

0.0

2.0

0.0

V.36 minium carried out under the con- 0.0

ditions provided for by Govern-

ment Decision 1218/2006?

Does the occupational medicine

V.37 doctor know his obligations re-

garding medical records?

0.0

2.0

0.0

Does the employer know his obli-

gations in the event that effects on

the health of an employee are re-

V.38

0.0

ported?

Asbestos. Has a risk assessment

been carried out to determine the

nature and extent of the employ-

ee's exposure to dust released

from asbestos and/or asbestos-

containing materials?

How is notification of activities in

which workers are exposed or are

likely to be exposed to asbestos-

containing dust carried out?

What measures have been taken to

reduce employee exposure to dust

V.39

0.0

2.0

1.5

2.0

0.0

V.40

generated from asbestos and/or as-

bestos-containing materials, to a

V.41

value below the maximum per-

missible limit?

How is the concentration of asbes-

tos fibers in the air measured?

If the use of PPE is required, have

measures been taken to limit its

V.42

0.0

1.5

0.0

V.43

use for each employee to the mini-

mum necessary?

Are employees and/or their repre-

sentatives consulted on the

measures to be taken if the estab-

lished limit values are expected to

be exceeded, before the respective

activities are carried out?

Are demolition or removal works

V.44

0.0

1.5

2.0

0.0

of asbestos and/or asbestos-con-

taining materials carried out based

V.45

on a work plan?

Assessing the Level of Safety at Work. Application:

Lighting, Noise, Vibrations, Thermal Environment, Chemical Agents

115

Does the employer ensure ade-

quate information for employees

V.46 carrying out activities involving

exposure to asbestos and/or their

representatives?

Does the employer ensure the as-

V.47 sessment of the health status of

employees?

0.0

2.0

1.5

0.0

Does the occupational health phy-

sician provide the employees con-

V.48 cerned with information and rec- 0.0

ommendations regarding the as-

sessment of their health status?

Is there a register of employee ex-

posure to asbestos and/or asbes-

tos-containing materials? The na-

ture and duration of the activity

and exposure are indicated; the

occupational health doctor has ac-

V.49

0.0

2.0

0.0

cess to this register; each em-

ployee has access to their own re-

sults; employees and/or their rep-

resentatives have access to the

anonymous collective results con-

tained in this register

Total P_rVşi P_mV

Real score: P_rV= 0.0

Maximum possible score: P_mV= 0.0

Security level: N_sV= - %

Rating: -

4. Conclusions

The occupational safety assessment method is intended for the assessment

of occupational safety in a company by an assessment team. The level of safety at

workplaces/workstations and at the company level is analytically assessed before

accidents occur, having both qualitative and quantitative character. The method tar-

gets fixed, evolving and itinerant workplaces.

For each of the sheets, the applicable and inapplicable indicators are ana-

lyzed, scores are awarded based on the evidence existing at the workplace in ac-

cordance with legal requirements, after which automatically, through the already

applied relationships, the following are obtained: the actual score per indicator, the

maximum possible score per indicator, the actual score obtained per sheet, the max-

imum possible score per sheet and the Security Level per sheet, based on which the

security level rating is also automatically determined through logical functions.

116

Costica Bejinariu, Doru Costin Darabont, Lucian Ionel Cioca

It is noted that it is possible that not all indicators corresponding to some risk

sheets may be inapplicable, as is the case with the Vibrations – Table 3 and Chem-

ical Agents – Table 5 worksheets.

The security level obtained allows the establishment of preventive measures,

in ascending order of priorities, by completing the summary sheet of workplace

risks and the summary sheet of common risks for the entire company, determining

the course of action for implementing the prevention and protection plan.

R E F E R E N C E S

[1] Darabont, A.; Tanase N. Guide for Assessing the Level of Safety at Work; INCDPM Press:

Bucharest, Romania, 1998.

[2] Bejinariu C, Darabont DC, Baciu ER, Georgescu IS, Bernevig-Sava MA, Baciu C. Considera-

tions on Applying the Method for Assessing the Level of Safety at Work, Sustainability, Basel,

Switzerland, 2017, 9, 1263, doi:10.3390/su9071263. 2017, WOS:000406709500190, ISSN:

2071-1050.

[3] Pece, S., Dăscălescu, A. Occupational Health and Safety - Explanatory dictionary, GENICOD

Publishing House, Bucureşti, Romania, 2001.

[4] Moraru, R.I., Securitate ocupaţională şi industrială: tratat universitar, Universitas Publishing

House, Petroşani, 2023, 2 vols., ISBN 978-973-741-903-3, ISBN 978-973-741-904-0, 1396 pg.

[5] Cioca, L. I., Occupational health and safety management, „Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu

Publishing House, Romania, 2010.

[6] Pece S. Risk assessment in the human-machine system, Atlas Press Publishing House, Bucureşti,

Romania, 2003.

[7] Bejinariu C, Darabont DC, Burduhos-Nergis DP, Cazac AM, Chiriac-Moruzzi C. Considerations

Regarding the Application of the Occupational Injury and Illness Risk Assessment Method at

Workplaces/Workstations, in Relation to the ISO 45001 Standard. Sustainability. Volume 15.

Issue 3. Article Number 212. DOI 10.3390/su15032121. FEB 2023. Accession Number

WOS:000930875800001. eISSN 2071-1050.

[8] Cioca, L. I. şi Moraru, R. I. Management of the psychosocial professional risks, „Lucian Blaga”

University of Sibiu Publishing House, Sibiu, ISBN 978-973-924-3, Romania, 2010.

[9] Dosa, I., Petrilean, D.C., Tataru, A.C., Vasilescu, G.D., Mija, N., Cazac, A.M., Rusu, O., Tatar-

can, A.-C., Bejinariu, C., 2025. Assessment of steam turbine performance degradation in long-

term operation. Energy 327, 136491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2025.136491

[10] Milea, A., Moraru, R.-I., Cioca, L.-I., 2025. Occupational Risk Management Through the Lens

of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): An Integrated Approach to Promoting Sustaina-

bility in the Workplace. Sustainability 17, 1864. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051864

[11] Petrilean, D.C., Fîță, N.D., Vasilescu, G.D., Ilieva-Obretenova, M., Tataru, D., Cruceru, E.A.,

Mateiu, C.I., Nicola, A., Darabont, D.-C., Cazac, A.-M., Bejinariu, C., 2025. Sustainability Man-

agement Through the Assessment of Instability and Insecurity Risk Scenarios in Romania’s En-

ergy Critical Infrastructures. Sustainability 17, 2932. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072932

[12] Darabont A, Kovacs S, Darabont DC. Guidelines for occupational safety self-assessment for

SMEs, INCDPM, Bucureşti, Romania, 1997.

[13] Bejinariu C, Darabont DC, Baciu ER, Ionita I, Bernevig-Sava MA, Baciu C. Considerations on

the Method for Self-Assessment of Safety at Work, Environmental Engineering and Manage-

ment Journal, Iasi, vol. 16, no 6, pp. 293-298, 2017, WOS:000409071500022, ISSN: 1582-9596.

Assessing the Level of Safety at Work. Application:

Lighting, Noise, Vibrations, Thermal Environment, Chemical Agents

117

[14] Bejinariu, C., Darabont, D.C., Cioca, L.I. Work Safety Self-Assessment. Application, Work

Load. Annals of the Academy of Romanian Scientists, Series on Engineering Sciences, Volume

16, Number 1/2024, pp 5-22, DOI: 10.56082/annalsarscieng.2024.1.5, ISSN 2066-8570.

[15] Bejinariu, C., Darabont, D.C., Cioca, L.I. Work Safety Self-Assessment (Part II). Application,

Worker. Annals of the Academy of Romanian Scientists, Series on Engineering Sciences, Vol-

ume 16, Number 2/2024, pp 119-133, DOI: 10.56082/ANNALSARSCIENG.2024.2.119, ISSN

2066-8570.

[16] Bejinariu, C., Darabont, D.C., Cioca, L.I. WORK SAFETY SELF-ASSESSMENT (PART III).

APPLICATIONS: Work Means / Work Equipment; Work Environment by Workplaces / Work-

stations. Annals of the Academy of Romanian Scientists, Series on Engineering Sciences, Vol-

ume 17, Number 2/2025, pp 149-167, DOI: 10.56082/annalsarscieng.2025.2.149, ISSN 2066-

8570.

[17] Moraru RI, Băbuţ G. Risk Analisys, Universitas Publishing House, Petroşani, Romania, 2000.

[18] Vasilescu GD. Unconventional methods for occupational risk analysis and assessment, INSE-

MEX Publishing House, Petroşani, Romania, 2008.

[19] Cioca, L.-I., Moraru, R.-I., Băbuţ G.-B., 2009, A framework for organisational characteristic

assessment and their influences on safety and health at work. Proceedings of the 15th Interna-

tional

WOS:000277292900009.

[20] Radu, S.M., Badea, D.O., Cioca, V.-R., 2026. Occupational Safety and Health as Assessable

Transversal Competence in Higher Education. Education Sciences 16, 297.

Scientific

Conference

The

Knowledge

Based

Organization,

2,

43-48.

https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16020297. WOS:001703621600001.

[21] *** Occupational Health and Safety Law no. 319/2006, Romania.

[22] *** Government Decision no. 1425/2006 – Methodological Norms for Applying the Occupa-

tional Health and Safety Law, Romania.