2. FUNDAMENTACIÓN TEORICA
2.1. Teoría Institucional
2.1.7. Procesos de institucionalización
A.1 ALARP (As low as reasonably practicable)
The HSE guidance [http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm] explains that
“ALARP” is short for “as low as reasonably practicable”. Also “SFAIRP” [or SFARP] is short for “so far as is reasonably practicable”. The two terms mean essentially the same thing and at their core is the concept of “reasonably practicable”; this involves weighing a risk against the trouble, time and money needed to control it. Thus, ALARP describes the level to which we expect to see workplace risks controlled. With major hazards and catastrophic events in is to be expected that reasonable practical would be very considerable to reduce the risk to a very low level.
See also ‘R2P2’ (Reducing risks, protecting people) which discusses levels of risk.
A.2 Catastrophic event
Catastrophic events are events that are beyond the ordinary or routine and are (in the UK) characterised by being of low probability but high consequence. In this report the phrase ‘Major Hazard’ is also used to categorise such events.
Examples of catastrophic events would be:
§ Structural collapse of permanent structure § Collapse of temporary works
§ Collapse of plant such as cranes § Major Fire
§ Tunnel collapse
§ Disruption of underground services.
Catastrophic events would be those having the following potential consequences:
§ Potential for multiple deaths and serious injuries in a single incident and/or § Serious disruption of infrastructure (eg road, rail ) and/or services (eg power,
telecoms)
In addition, such events may well have the following features:
§ Ability to damage or even destroy organisations commercially, either directly or through loss of reputation
§ Creation of public demand for action, possibly leading to demand for a public enquiry and/or changes to relevant legislation.
A.3 CDM 2007
CDM 2007 is shorthand for the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. These regulations apply to all construction work (as defined in the Regulation) in Great Britain.
A.4 Check, audit and review
There are many types and combinations of checking, auditing and reviewing. Depending on the situation, they may be in-house, in-house but involving a separate team, by others appointed by the team or by others independently appointed by an outside body such as the client or a
statutory body. The prefix ‘independent’ is used when there is a strong element of independence from the core team.
Checking of safety critical calculations or processes should always be carried out in conjunction with an element of review by a suitably experienced independent person because either (a) the checking has not included review of what is being done or (b) it is often what has not been calculated or the manner of making the calculation which matters, not the mathematics per se. The terms ‘audit’ and ‘review’ have similar meanings but with a more ‘aggressive’ implication when an ‘audit’ is carried out.
Reviewing is the preferred term for an informed examination of concept as well as detail. It will normally include the provision of helpful comments and may be part of a continuous process to give added confidence in a progressive, timely manner which avoids disrupting the project and ultimately improves the chance of delivery in a reliable, predictable manner.
The term ‘peer review’ has been used for the type of review where concepts are examined and challenged at an early stage by mature, experienced people, looking at the big picture and avoiding assumptions or the following of published advice or codes without a clear understanding of the engineering principles involved.
For more on this issue please refer to the SCOSS Topic paper (REF: SC/09/035) about ‘Independent reviewing through peer assist’
(http://www.scoss.org.uk/publications/rtf/SC09.035%20
%20WEB%20IR%20Draft%20form%20of%20Agreement%20Jan%202009.pdf)
A.5 COMAH
COMAH is shorthand for ‘The Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999’ which aim to ensure that businesses (a) take all necessary measures to prevent major accidents involving dangerous substances and (b) limit the consequences to people and the environment of any major accidents which do occur.
The COMAH Regulations apply mainly to the chemical and petrochemical industries, fuel storage and distribution. They may also affect businesses that store fuels (including gas), have large warehouses or distribution facilities (or) manufacture and store explosives.
A.6 Complexity
Construction work is usually complex in organisation, technology and methodology.
Organisational complexity is evidenced by the number of interfaces which exist on most
projects and the fact that almost invariably (a) each project is different and (b) the companies and people involved are different and there is considerable complexity in any construction project.
Technical complexity is evidenced by the number of different materials and elements
assembled, some made off-site but many made (or completed) on-site, then assembled into a whole.
Methodological complexity is evidenced by the complex work methods employed, using a
range of on-site plant and equipment and involving the delivery, storage, transport and lifting required for the assembly of the many separate parts.
A.7
CROSS (Confidential Reporting On Structural Safety)CROSS was established by SCOSS in 2005 to improve structural safety and reduce failures by using confidential reports to highlight lessons that have been learnt, to generate feedback and to influence change. CROSS uses reports on the concerns of engineers and others for the benefit of the public and practitioners in the construction industry. No concern is too small to be reported and nothing is too large. Key features of the scheme are to:
• be non-judgmental
• promote a positive attitude to learning from experience
• be seen by all sides of industry as impartial
• analyse and evaluate reports
• provide advice and guidance in Newsletters
• give feedback to industry and regulators
• provide complete confidentiality for reporters
The website (www.cross-structural-safety.org) contains many useful features and is designed to simplify registration and reporting as well as having a database of reports. This contains all the CROSS reports that have been published together with extracts from SCOSS publications.
A.8 Dynamic risk assessment
Dynamic risk assessment is “the continuous assessment of risk in the rapidly changing
circumstances of an operational incident, in order to implement the control measures necessary to ensure an acceptable level of safety” (HM Fire Service Inspectorate, 1998).
The term is also used in construction to describe the practice of making ad-hoc adjustment of the method statement as required on site, in response to changing circumstances.
A.9 ‘ERIC’ methodology
ERIC is a simple method of explaining the risk hierarchy: § Elimination of hazards
§ Reduction of levels of risk
§ Information is provided to those who need it § Control of residual risk
In reality, often it is only those involved prior to construction (eg designers and preconstruction planners) that can eliminate hazards and it is usually the contractors that control the residual risk.
Consideration of potential catastrophic events in ERIC
For catastrophic events, the process of hazard identification and subsequent safety risk
management is identical but when high severity potentially catastrophic risks are noted further
thinking needs to be done (often in a workshop of stakeholders, ensuring that people with expert
knowledge of the work involved and its risks) to deal with the identification of potential hazardous events, the hazards involved and the options for hazard elimination and risk reduction. This will involve thinking through the logic of how events might unfold (e.g. by Fault Tree Analysis) and what can reasonably and proportionately be done.
The risks must be reduced ‘as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP or SFARP). All decisions are liable to include commercial issues of time and money, but these must be balanced against the potential impacts of a catastrophic event.
A.10 Innovation
The word ‘innovation’ means different things to different people. In safety risk management the primary concern is to identify and manage risk – so any innovation which increases risk is of concern.
Most construction is to some degree ‘innovative’ because teams/roles/relationships are always different and have to cope with varied projects/designs as well. No two projects are identical (see also ‘complexity’). ‘Blue skies’ innovation in which something is being done for the first time is extremely unusual in construction; it will merit a high level of management of risk throughout, as new hazards and/or risks may become evident as the work proceeds.
Doing things ‘in an innovative way’ is more common. Quite often the novelty will be more in the experience of those involved (others having done the same thing elsewhere) but the risks are similar to ‘blue skies’ innovation unless someone who has had prior experience is involved as an advisor or independent reviewer.
‘Safety-driven innovation’ is an emerging concept of innovation which may drive safety due to the added level of thinking and attention which accompanies the innovative work. See further mention in 4.4 of this report. Innovation was identified as playing a role in only 4 of the 62 case study events – but two of these were large catastrophic events involving major loss of life in one case and infrastructure in the other case. This demonstrates that new and novel techniques, of whatever nature, should be handled very carefully using competent, properly resourced safety risk management processes.
A.11 Interfaces
The construction industry operates with a myriad of physical, organisational and interpersonal interfaces, each of which presents opportunities for mis-communication and mis-understanding which may affect safety risk management. Types of interface can be ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ and
typically include:
Organisational & interpersonal (‘soft’ interfaces) § Client/contractor
§ Contractor/supply-chain § Designer/constructor
§ Project phases, sites and disciplines § Manager/team
Physical (‘hard’ interfaces) § Tower crane/base structure § Piling rig/piling platform
§ Cladding panel/support structure
A.12 Latent defects
Latent defects are defects in a design or in construction which do not manifest themselves during the construction phase (or in the post-construction defects-rectification period). A structure may be fatally flawed and collapse in-service due to a latent defect. A structure may contain a latent defect which only becomes apparent during later construction work such as a modification or during demolition.
A.13 Major hazard
A major hazard is one which, either alone or in conjunction with other hazards, could give rise to a catastrophic event (or a ‘top event’ – see Glossary). When hazards are being identified at the start of the safety risk management process, potential ‘catastrophic events’ need to be identified specifically (see ‘Consideration of potential catastrophic events in ERIC above) and analysed to gain a full understanding of the contribution which particular hazards play.
A.14 Peer review
Peer review is a generic term that is used to describe a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals with the related field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. See also check audit and review above.
A.15 R2P2 - ‘Reducing Risk, Protecting People’
The HSE report ‘Reducing Risk, Protecting People’ (www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/r2p2.pdf) examines how decisions might reasonably be made about high risk scenarios, based on
statistical assessment of outcomes and the acceptability of certain levels of risk. The concept of
tolerability and tolerability limits lies at the centre of R2P2, being applied to particular ‘risks’.
The scenarios which occur on construction are however so many and varied that the underpinning statistical data for each individual ‘risk’ is unlikely to be available.
A.16 Risk Management
Risk management encompasses all the activities directed towards the management of risk, in whatever context it is being considered, so as to achieve a safe system of work. Management of safety risks (see ‘Safety risk management’ will always need to be considered.
A.17 Robustness
Robustness in construction is the quality of being able to withstand in a proportionate manner the forces and environment which are experienced. There is also a definition in BS EN 1991-1 7 as “the ability of a structure to withstand events like fire, explosions, impact or the
consequences of human error without being damaged to an extent disproportionate to the original cause”.
Note: robustness can also refer to (for example) robust processes and the definition given above does not preclude the importance of other such aspects of robustness.
A.18 Safety Risk Management
Safety risk management is the management activity and process whereby: § hazards are identified
§ hazards are eliminated if reasonably practicable, taking all relevant factors into account § the level of risk due to remaining hazards is reduced as far as is reasonably practicable § information is provided to those who need it
§ residual risk is controlled
This can be summarised by the ERIC approach. Designers and constructors should
receive special attention, involving (for design activity, including temporary works - see below) designers and the CDM Co-ordinator and (for site activity) the Principal Contractor or, for smaller projects, the main contractor.
A.19 SCOSS (Standing Committee on Structural Safety)
SCOSS has been in existence for some 34 years. Its remit is to identify trends or practices which might lead to a concern in respect of structural safety. It is supported by the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Structural Engineers and the Health and Safety Executive. The SCOSS Committee is a group of experienced construction industry people who keep an eye on contemporary practice and identify issues that should be of concern. Information is
published on these topics and every two years a full report is published which is widely
circulated and provides authoritative guidance to the industry and to government. These reports and details of the topics considered may be seen on its website at www.scoss.org.uk
A.20 SFARP or SFAiRP (So Far As is Reasonably Practical)
This term is applied in CDM 2007 when discussing management of risk. There is continuing debate about what SFARP means. If a potential catastrophic event (hazard) is identified which cannot reasonably be eliminated, its level of risk should be reduced by design as low as is reasonably practicable, in a proportionate manner. (See ALARP in Glossary). This is a sensible SFARP response to the identification of a potential catastrophic event, where the proportionate response is to reduce risk ALARP.
For catastrophic events, the level of risk should be reduced be to a very low level indeed. The construction industry has insufficient data or experience to make numerical assessments and each project and site in any event presents a unique series of challenges. Therefore, assessment of levels of risk for potentially catastrophic events in construction needs to be carried out with an appreciation that risk levels for such events must be very low; and this may well lead to
additional precautions being taken beyond those commonly thought to be adequate in the
industry.