When a workplace runs alcohol testing, two records of different kinds are created. One is the risk assessment document, which identifies hazards and risk factors that could lead to accidents or health impairment at work and sets out improvement measures; the other is the alcohol test result of a specific person at a specific time. Even if both are produced in the same safety management process, their purpose and the information they contain are not the same.
Risk assessment is the procedure, under Article 36 of Korea's Occupational Safety and Health Act, by which an employer identifies hazards and risk factors, including work behavior, and establishes and implements improvement measures to reduce the risk. This article requires that the results of the risk assessment be recorded and kept in accordance with Ministry of Employment and Labor ordinance. However, it is hard to stretch this provision directly into a basis for keeping all individual raw alcohol test data in the same way. The key is not the title of a document, but distinguishing why each piece of data is needed.
What a risk assessment should record
The results of a risk assessment center on which work or work behavior was found to carry a risk, how the size of that risk was judged, and which improvement measures were decided on and carried out. If impaired judgment due to alcohol, or the check procedure before operating vehicles or equipment, was reviewed as a risk factor at the workplace, the assessment document can contain that risk factor, the preventive procedure, and whether the improvement measures were carried out.
What matters here is that the assessment document is not the same as a file that collects individuals' readings. For example, if a possible gap in the testing procedure was identified and the response was to re-brief staff and supplement the procedure, the risk assessment document should prioritize information that explains the improvement measure, such as the possible gap, the supplemented procedure, and when it was implemented. Whether individual readings or names are truly necessary to explain that measure is a separate question to weigh.
Individual alcohol test results are separate data
An individual alcohol test record is information that can be linked to a specific person, such as who was tested and when, and whether there was a test confirmation or re-check. So, unlike risk assessment results, its purpose of collection, scope of use, and need for retention must be set out independently. Whether any industry-specific regulations or internal procedures require individual records to be kept should also be reviewed separately from risk assessment records.
In particular, the raw data downloaded from a breathalyzer, the result slip printed on site, and the checklist made by staff are not all the same document. Raw data can contain the values at the time of testing, a checklist may be made to manage whether testing took place, and a risk assessment report explains the measures taken to reduce risk. Being saved in the same folder does not make their retention grounds or processing purposes the same.
| Data to distinguish | Why the data is needed | Core content to record |
|---|---|---|
| Risk assessment results | To manage work-related risks and improvement measures | Risk factors, improvement measures, implementation |
| Individual raw alcohol test data | To confirm a specific test fact or result | Time of test, results linked to the individual |
| Summary of operations | To see whether the procedure is working | Implementation status, types of omissions, needed improvements |
Summary data can show problems in a procedure without copying individuals' raw data as is. One way is to organize it within the scope needed for deciding on improvement measures, such as the number of times briefing on the test procedure was missed in a given period, or whether retraining was held. If even reports that do not require identifying individuals are turned into individual result tables, it becomes more likely that unnecessary information will keep remaining in assessment documents.
Problems that arise when they are mixed in one file
If individual test result tables are routinely attached to a risk assessment report, different kinds of data get bundled into a single retention flow. Later, even if the assessment document must be kept while the individual list must be handled under a separate standard, it becomes hard to judge which parts to keep and which copies to clean up. If the same table is repeated in meeting materials, presentation slides, and email attachments, the number of items to manage grows further.
Consider a hypothetical case. Suppose a workplace that built its pre-trip alcohol testing procedure into its risk assessment attached every driver's test result table to its monthly assessment report. Later observation showed that the information actually used to decide on improvement measures was "whether the testing procedure was carried out at the set time" and "whether staff were re-briefed when a test was missed." The interpretation here is that the core of the assessment document is the implementation status of the procedure, not every individual reading.
Possible actions to consider include recording the procedural risk factors and improvement results in the assessment report, and managing the individual raw data needed to confirm specific test facts in a separate storage location with separate access rights. The completion criterion is a state where the report alone can explain which risks were reduced and how, and where, for each type of data, it is clear why individual test records are kept and who may view them. If the data are already mixed, it is safer to first identify where the originals, copies, and distributed versions are, and then review how far to tidy them up, rather than deleting content on your own.
Write the purpose before the period in the retention schedule
When making a records list or retention schedule, the starting point is to list data separately rather than as a single broad line such as "alcohol test data." Adding to each item who created it, when, for what purpose, where it is stored, who may view it, and the condition for ending retention reduces the mixing of risk assessment documents and individual records. You should also list separately the data confirmed as subject to statutory retention and the data kept additionally for organizational operations.
The fact that testing equipment can store data and how long the organization keeps that data are different matters. The storage period a device supports is only a technical feature; it does not set the statutory retention scope of risk assessment results or the need to keep individual test records. So at operational stages such as replacing equipment, downloading files, or keeping printouts, you also need to manage, in line with the records list, which data is moved and for what purpose.
Keep the role of the assessment document narrow and clear
The focus of the risk assessment set out in Article 36 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is identifying hazards and risk factors and establishing and implementing improvement measures to reduce risk. Even when the alcohol testing procedure is included in the assessment, it better serves this purpose to build the assessment document as a document explaining risk factors and improvement results, not as a means of accumulating individual readings over a long period.
In the end, the grounds for retention are not set by a common label such as "alcohol-related data." You must first distinguish whether something is a risk assessment result, individual raw test data, or a summary for improving procedures. Only with that distinction can you separately review the retention of assessment records under Article 36 and the need to process individual records, and reduce the problem of unnecessary personal information remaining attached to assessment documents.
※ This article is general information and not legal advice on any individual matter. For specific cases, consult a lawyer or other professional. Laws may be amended, so check the latest version at the Korea Law Information Center.
