ALARP and Proactive v Reactive approach

[Tom Sutton]

Can I take it back to the first fire door bit?  It may be non compliance it may not. It depends on the FRA and the outcomes of that document.  A risk analysis is exactly that.  A hazard may be present that presents a risk but the RP may be prepared to live with it, do not forget Alarp and that the onus is on the RP not an enforcer. As regards offences it is far easier to discharge the enforcement function after an incident because of the reactive nature of the legislation than to do it before.  Proving that an area of non compliance places a person at risk of death or serious injury is not easy before an event has taken place but much easier after. Hence the difference in fines and costs.

I am still trying to get my head around Risk Assessment and I noted the above submission in another thread “Breach & Offence".

It talks about ALARP which I was not aware of, consequently I checked out the HSE website and read up on it. I did not study it to any great depth but one guidance note did concern me and it was “HSE principles for Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) in support of ALARP decisions.” Do many of you use these principles?

The submission also appears to favour a reactive approach to enforcement not a proactive. I know this is favoured by the HSE and the greater part of non domestic premises are dealt with this way but high risk premises still use the proactive approach. Is there many assessors and enforces would prefer to go the way of the HSE?

It did work for them the H&S Inspectorate were decimated and loads of money was saved.

[wee brian]

I've worked in the Building Trade most of my career. Many of my coleagues are dead or maimed as a result of their reactive approach.  I wouldnt like to see FRSs going the same way.

[jokar]

if you put ALARP into a search engine you will get some surprising results and you are coreect it is a cost benefit analysis and that my friends may be Risk Assessment.

[wee brian]

It's only logical that cost comes into establishing what is reasonable.

If there is a small risk and eliminating it would be disproportionately expensive then you adopt a different approach- staff training for instance.

The Principles of Prevention give you an order of priority (ish)

[PhilB]

Quite so Joker.

"Practicable" is usually taken as meaning "that which is physically possible in the light of current knowledge and invention. It is often seen in the context of "all practicable steps" or "best practicable means.


Obviously, "reasonably practicable" cannot be such a strict standard as that denoted by the word "practicable". The commonly accepted definition is that found in the judgement of Lord Asquith in the case of Edwards v. National Coal Board.

Mr Edwards was killed when an unsupported section of a travelling road in a mine gave way. Only about half the whole length of the road was shored up. The company argued that the cost of shoring up all roads in every mine was prohibitive when compared to the risk.

The men in funny wigs said:


" 'Reasonably practicable' is a narrower term than 'physically possible' and seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it be shown that there is gross disproportion between them - the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice - the defendants discharge the onus upon them. This computation falls to be made by the owner at a point of time anterior the accident."

The test for what is reasonably practicable was set out in this case.The case established that risk must be balanced against the 'sacrifice', whether in money, time or trouble, needed to avert or mitigate the risk. By carrying out this exercise the responsible person can determine what measures are reasonable to take.

If the measures to be taken are grossly disproportionate to the risk, then the measures need not be taken.

[Mike Buckley]

As I see it the whole matter of fire safety is (in theory) now a mix of proactive and reactive. The building regs provide the proactive approach where they specify how the building should be built and the structural precautions required. The building regs require that the Fire Authority be consulted and this is the opportunity for the FA to be proactive in this respect. It is then up to the Responsible Person to carry out Fire Risk Assessments to provide an overall picture of what is going on and to take account of matters which are not covered by building regs. Again the FA has the opportunity to assess the FRA and advise or enforce as necessary. Finally if the whole thing goes pearshaped the FA has the opportunity to prosecute.

So building control, the Fire Authority and the Responsible Person should all be proactive in fire safety with a reactive aspect available if things go wrong.

In theory this looks great and it should work if everyone is carrying out their role.

All pigs are watered, fed and ready to fly!

[Tom Sutton]

If there is a small risk and eliminating it would be disproportionately expensive then you adopt a different approach- staff training for instance.

I accept that approach but the HSE’s view of what should and should not be considered in a duty holder’s CBA for health and safety ALARP determinations I personally cannot accept fully and the example shown fills me with horror. Check out http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpcheck.htm

[CivvyFSO]

I've worked in the Building Trade most of my career. Many of my coleagues are dead or maimed as a result of their reactive approach.  I wouldnt like to see FRSs going the same way.

Were these sort of deaths not more common before HSE started prosecuting people for getting it wrong? (Not being argumentative or stroppy, its a genuine question)

I personally don't want to end up akin to a 'traffic warden of the fire world'. I would rather be able to visit premises proactively, helping those who want to be helped, but still enforcing/prosecuting reactively where necessary. It is the responsible persons and relevant persons out there who pay my wages through tax and rates. We offer a public service and it should be kept that way.

That being said, if the HSE's way of doing it has cut deaths and accidents then I can see the reasoning behind it. My main gripe is that even if it works and they manage to severely cut the amount of fire safety inspectors down, will the rate payers ever see the benefit or will it simply be going in someone elses pocket?

[PhilB]

I accept that approach but the HSE’s view of what should and should not be considered in a duty holder’s CBA for health and safety ALARP determinations I personally cannot accept fully and the example shown fills me with horror. Check out http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpcheck.htm

It only gets scarey in my opinion when certain persons confuse fire risk with the risk of a fire occuring.

In my view we should be looking at the risk of a fire causing harm or damage when it occurs, not if it occurs.

A fire is a reasonably forseeable event that may happen, however unklikely you can prove that to be by clever sums.

It is old ground again but some methodologies will allow you to reduce protective measures if fire is less likely to occur....that cannot be correct.

If injury or damage is  less likely when a fire occurs then yes you can reduce the protective measures.

A  fire may only occur once in 400 years in your particular class/use of building.....but it may happen tomorrow...that is reasonably foreseeable and reasonable measure must be taken to reduce the risk of injury or harm.

I know some of you will throw up the old arguements like churches, stone masons and wet fish shops...........yes you can usually take less precautions in such buildings because the fires that occur will be slow developing, recognised in early stages etc. etc.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but it is not the likelihood of fire that is important......that remains the same........people + electricity......you may get a fire so you must take reasonable precautions.

[Mike Buckley]

I disagree, it should be a two pronged approach. The first aspect is to reduce the hazard of a fire occuring down to the good old ALARP. Then the second aspect is to reduce the effect should a fire occur both from the life risk and the property loss.

[PhilB]

I disagree, it should be a two pronged approach. The first aspect is to reduce the hazard of a fire occuring down to the good old ALARP. Then the second aspect is to reduce the effect should a fire occur both from the life risk and the property loss.

Apologise if I did not make it clear but I'm not suggesting that we should not take measures to reduce the risk of a fire occuring.

Yes of course it's a two pronged approach, reduce risk ALARP and then manage residual risk.
What I am saying is you shouldn't try to justify a reduction in protective measures because fire is unlikely to occur.

If you disagree please explain why you think this is an acceptable approach.

Don't forget that the Fire Safety Order is only there for safety of relevant persons, not property.

[Fishy]

I disagree, it should be a two pronged approach. The first aspect is to reduce the hazard of a fire occuring down to the good old ALARP. Then the second aspect is to reduce the effect should a fire occur both from the life risk and the property loss.

May I suggest a correction to the terminology?  I don't believe you can reduce a hazard to 'ALARP'.  You reduce risk to 'ALARP'.  This is done by identifying the hazard, considering relevant good industry practice, and reducing the risk to the ALARP level.  This can be done by either adopting the good industry practice (e.g. the CLG Guides), or demonstrating that you have achieved an equivalently low level of risk in other ways.  

It's the equivalence that normally rules out cost-benefit analysis as being useful to assess fire risk.  If you try CBA, you might commonly come to the conclusion that for most premises the probability of having a significant fire is so small that, even recognising the serious consequences (death), if you were to eliminate the risk entirely the risk reduction benefit would be very small (perhaps a few £10k).  On this basis, the cost of any fire protection might very rarely be supportable purely via a CBA.  My personal view is that fire protection 'standards' are driven more by societal intolerance of death in fire than a 'pure' risk basis (hence the major incident = new legislation progression that we've seen over the years).

So, to put it crudely, for the vast majority of cases ALARP = good industry practice or an equivalently low level of risk achieved by other means.  CBA doesn't enter into it.

[jokar]

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.

[wee brian]

I just all hope you wear crash helmets when you are driving you car.

[PhilB]

I just all hope you wear crash helmets when you are driving you car.

No Wee Brian but I don't disconnect my brakes and airbag due to the fact that I have reduced the frequency of my accidents by driving carefully.