ALARP and Proactive v Reactive approach

[wee brian]

Exactly - your response to the hazard is proportionate to the risk.

[PhilB]

Exactly - your response to the hazard is proportionate to the risk.

Of course it is!!!!!!


So do you believe that if we can reduce the frequency of the fires we can reduce the protective measures.

How do you know exactly when this infrequent fire is going to happen??

Does the fact that I have driven safely to work for the past twenty years mean that I am at less risk tonight when I drive home??

No an accident is a reasonably foreseeable event that I must account for.....but only to the extent that is reasonably practicable.....hence the lack of crash helmet!

I look forward to the court case where the responsible person has removed the protective measures because his sums proved that a fire was extremely unlikely.

[wee brian]

So if there is a premises where there is a greater risk of a fire occuring would you not consider putting more protective measures in place?

Formula 1 drivers wear crash helmets cos they crash more and when they do its a real doozey.

[PhilB]

So if there is a premises where there is a greater risk of a fire occuring would you not consider putting more protective measures in place?

Formula 1 drivers wear crash helmets cos they crash more and when they do its a real doozey.

Yes of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What I am saying is you cannot drop below minimum life safety requirements....which all our current guidance is about..............because a fire is less likely to occur.


Please please explain why you think that you can,

[Mike Buckley]

I would agree that although society tends to drive the legislation as a reaction to loss of life, CBA would show this is not beneficial. Where CBA should come into play is in the financial loss to the business. If the analysis of the cost of the precautions is balanced against the cost of a life then the balance is against the precautions. However if the analysis is of the cost of the precautions against the potential loss to the business then frequently the balance leans towards the precautions. It is just like the cost of a fuse against the cost of a computer.

[wee brian]

Phil - we've had this chat before and I'm never gonna get through to you. But "our existing guidance" is based on a presumption about the typical risk in proprties of a certain type.

If in the unlikely event that you have a premises that has a lower fire risk then why not take that into account.

There are no minimum requirements. The requirement is to assess the risk.

[PhilB]

Phil - we've had this chat before and I'm never gonna get through to you. But "our existing guidance" is based on a presumption about the typical risk in proprties of a certain type.

Yes Brian I know this is old ground and I think we will have to agree to differ on this one.

It does concern me when I come across consultants who try to convince me by using statistics that because a fire is unlikely they can treat it as an insignificant risk and do nothing about it...you will never convince me that that is correct and I will never as an enforcer accept that arguement.

Consider two identical buildings with identical occupants but statistically you can prove that a fire in building A occurs once in 100 years and a fire in building B occurs once in 200 years. Can I reduce the protective measures that have been provided for life safety only in building B because the frequency of the fire is halved???

In my opinion no, because that once in 200 years may be tomorrow.


I know I will never convert you Wee Brian but I will keep trying.

[kurnal]

I sit on both sides of this fence. The argument is at what level the benchmark is set. Like cars the benchmark for fire  safety in  buildings  varies depending on when they were built and the use to which it is put.

You can only take the car analogy so far but here goes. To start with - varying standards in buildings. My mates 1960 ford consul has no seatbelts and legally doesnt have to have them. My  1990 corsa has seatbelts but no airbags. My wifes 2007 ferrari  (only dreaming) has airbags , seatbelts etc. The law does not allow me to remove the safety precautions installed in any of the cars because these  safety provisions are prescriptive legal requirements. But if I put a 900cc motor in the ferrari I can downgrade the brakes accordingly.

The building regulations et al assume I have a 2 litre engine and ABS disc brakes all round and roll cage. If I put the 900cc engine in I can probably go down to disc and drums, take out the roll cage and just relay instead on the ABC posts. The accident is still likely to happen but the consequences are likely to be less severe needing less protection.

So I vary the inbuilt crash protection and accident prevention in accordance with the level of risk.
Buildings are the same. I agree with you Phil the level of protection must always be sufficient to protect me from the forseeable risk to life from fire. But I may reduce the level of protection in sync with a reduction in fire risk taking into account not the liklihood of a fire but the potential forseeable consequences .

[Tom Sutton]

I agree with you Phil the level of protection must always be sufficient to protect me from the foreseeable risk to life from fire. But I may reduce the level of protection in sync with a reduction in fire risk taking into account not the likelihood of a fire but the potential foreseeable consequences .

Kurnal leaving the car analogy aside my understanding of the last paragraph surely is what Phil is saying?

[PhilB]

I absolutely agree Kurnal.

[wee brian]

"the level of protection must always be sufficient to protect me from the foreseeable risk to life from fire"

Trust me boys - the "minimum standards" that are in guidance docs wont always protect you (hence people still die sometimes).

So what you get is reasonable protection.  Our codes actually do this for us but somehow you dont think we can do it for ourselves.

[Fishy]

Fishy, nice ideas but unfortunatelt the HSE do not agree and as the RR(FS)O and risk assessment is H&S led I think you will find it difficult to persuade good H&S Directors or Fire safety mangers that you may be correct.  I agree that without further knowledge then the guides may be a standard, but where Assessors or other professionals have agreater knowldge then they have the abiity to use ALARP.

Quite the contrary; the guidance that I have based my statements on comes directly from the HSE (their report RR151 and from the HSE website itself).  In fact, they make a clear statement on their website that the HSE "does not normally accept a lower standard of protection than would be provided by the application of current good practice".

Many people assume ALARP = cost-benefit analysis.  It doesn't.  CBA is a tool that may inform an ALARP analysis in some circumstances.  Generally speaking (and for new works, almost always), the HSE guidance is that ALARP = good industry practice or an equivalent level of safety provided by other means.

[wee brian]

Yeah the reason HSE uses the "good industry practice" line is because they dont know what people should do in practice.

So if your oil terminal blows up they have a look at what the other oil terminals have got. If you are as good(or bad) as them then you're in the clear.

At least we do have some established benchmarks to work from. All of which take some cognisance of likelyhood of fire.