Reducing risks, protecting people

1 Reducing risks ,HSE s decision-making processprotecting peopleReducing risks ,HSE s decision-making processprotecting peopleHSEBOOKSREDUCING risks , protecting PEOPLEHSE s decision-making processii Crown copyright 2001 Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:Copyright Unit, Her Majesty s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1 BQFirst published 2001 ISBN 0 7176 2151 0 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying,recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the copyright 1: Overview of risk and risk management issues5 Purpose of this document6 Why the need to explain decisions on the management of risk?10 Part 2: Review of developments that have influenced our decision-makingapproach10 Developments and influences10 Advances in knowledge on how people view risks13 Changes in the regulatory environment17 Changes on the industrial scene17 Changes in the preferences, values and expectations of society21 Part 3: Approach to reaching decisions on risk 21 System for informing and reaching decisions22 Stage 1: Deciding whether the issue is one for HSC/E24 Stage 2: Defining and characterising the issue32 Stage 3: Examining the options available and their merits37 Stage 4: Adopting decisions38 Stage 5: Implementing the decisions39 Stage 6: Evaluating the effectiveness of action taken40 Criteria for reaching decisions44 Tolerability limits49 Applying the (generalised) TOR framework51 Intolerable risks : I52 Intolerable risks : II53 Appendix 1.

2 Some of the conventions adopted for undertaking riskassessments53 Actual and hypothetical persons55 Standards56 Procedures for handling uncertainty57 Appendix 2: Identifying and considering options for new regulations,Approved Codes of Practice and guidance57 Architecture of health and safety law58 Constraints59 Hierarchy of optionsREDUCING risks , protecting PEOPLEHSE s decision-making processiv62 Appendix 3: Some issues relevant to assessing risk reduction options62 Implications of case law on reasonable practicability 63 risks taken into account in regulating64 Use of cost benefit analysis in the decision-making process65 Valuation of benefits65 Discounting of costs and benefits66 Costs taken into account in regulating67 Comparison of risk against costs68 Appendix 4: Some statistics for comparing risks from different hazards68 Examples of large numbers taken from everyday life69 Examples of low probability taken from everyday life72 References74 Glossary of acronymsvPrefaceWe are pleased to present the document Reducing risks , protecting peoplerevised in thelight of comments on the discussion Health and Safety Executive (HSE) published the original discussion document Reducingrisks, protecting peoplein May 1999.

3 It set out how the statutory bodies responsible for theadministration of the Health and Safety at Work Act 19741( the HSW Act ) approached thosedecisions about the management of risk that are required of them under the Act. For theHealth and Safety Commission (HSC) these include making arrangements to secure thehealth, safety and welfare of people at work, and the health and safety of the public, in theway undertakings are conducted including proposing new laws and standards, conductingresearch and providing information and advice. HSE advises and assists HSC in its functions,including the preparation of draft regulations and Approved Codes of Practice. It has somespecific statutory responsibilities of its own, notably for the enforcement of health and safetylaw, the licensing of nuclear power stations and dealing with a variety of safety case regimesetc. Local authorities also have statutory responsibilities for enforcement of health and safetylaw, mainly in the distribution, retail, office, leisure and catering sectors.

4 A major purpose of the document was to set out an overall framework for decision takingby HSE which would ensure consistency and coherence across the full range of risks fallingwithin the scope of the Health and Safety at Work Act. This framework was based on themethod which HSE applies to the control of risk at nuclear power stations, originallypublished in 1988 as The tolerability of risks from nuclear power stations (TOR).2 Events since the publication of the discussion document have reinforced the need topublish a description of HSE s decision-making process. Over recent years, public concernover such matters as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), railway safety and foodsafety has intensified the call for openness about how decisions are taken on theregulation of risks . The public is also more aware that, given few activities are withoutany risk, there must be a balance between the health and safety measures introduced toeliminate or control risks , and the costs arising or benefits forgone when the measures areintroduced.

5 Hence the recent lively debate about where that balance surprisingly, there was great interest in the discussion document. It was widelydistributed both in print and electronically in a portable format. We received over 150responses, many of them representing consolidated replies from a number of interestedparties, and around 10 000 hits on the Internet site. We thank all those who have comments have proved invaluable and the new version has taken them into account. In fact most of the comments received were generally favourable. The concept of a singledocument explaining HSE s decision-making process was welcomed, as was the extensionREDUCING risks , protecting PEOPLEHSE s decision-making processviof TOR beyond the nuclear industry. Moreover, the decision-making framework wasaccepted as being universally applicable, and no area was identified where the proposedcriteria on tolerability would create difficulties.

6 The majority of respondents also foundthat good practice had been given the right emphasis and supported the principles forconducting cost benefit , the consultation has highlighted some points which could benefit fromclarification. One of these relates to the status of the document. We would like toemphasise that the document is aimed at explaining the decision-making process in HSErather than providing guidance to individual duty-holders on what they need to do. Suchguidance is available in other documents and particularly Management of health and safetyat work regulations 1999. Approved Code of Practice and consultationprocess has shown that many duty holders, and others involved in occupational health andsafety, would like to emulate HSE s approach to devising the control regime that should beput in place for addressing hazards at work. As the new document says, we welcome thisas long as those who want to emulate the regulator recognise the different context in whichHSE applies the framework and take this into account when applying our process to theirown decisions.

7 We have amended the text to make this distinction clearer. We have also taken the opportunity to dispel any perception that we were moving awayfrom a risk-based approach. The new version emphasises the role of risk assessment, bothquantitative and qualitative, in the decision-making process and expands on the role ofgood practice in determining the control measures that must be put in place for addressinghazards. We also make clear that the philosophy and approach set out in the documentoperate within, and not as an alternative to, the principles of good regulation published bythe Better Regulation Task presenting this latest document we recognise there will be scope for further developmentand refinement. We shall revise it as necessary so that it remains a document attuned tocurrent needs. Improving health and safety requires attention to the assessment and management of this to be achieved, we need to raise public understanding of the issues involved andof our own understanding of the concerns of society and the values people employ whenthey consider matters of risk.

8 Prompting a more informed public debate on how to handlerisk is an essential part of this and we hope that publication of this document will help tostimulate this debate. We will certainly play our part in doing , we would like to thank all those, both in HSE and outside, who have contributedto the redrafting of this document. Bill CallaghanTimothy Walker ChairDirector GeneralHealth and Safety CommissionHealth and Safety ExecutiveIntroductionThis document is aimed primarily at stakeholders who want to know more about HSE sphilosophy for securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work and forprotecting others against risks to health and safety arising from work activities, and theprocedures, protocols and criteria underpinning the philosophy. It sets out the basis andcriteria by which HSE, in complying with its functions, decides upon the degree and formof regulatory control that it believes should be put in place for addressing occupationalhazards.

9 It considers the way scientific evidence (or the lack of it) and uncertainties aretaken into account and how the balance is struck between the benefits of adopting ameasure to avoid or control the risks , and its is in three parts and has four appendices, as follows:Part 1 Sets out the aims of the document, namely the need to: open to scrutiny HSE s approach to the regulation and management of risk, andthe philosophy underpinning it; make transparent the factors that inform our decisions on how risks should beregulated and managed, for example how account is taken of the scientificknowledge of the risks concerned, the technology available for controlling them, theresource implications of adopting the decisions, public attitudes towards the risksand the benefits they engender and show how these shape the form and content thatour regulations and guidance take; help reassure the public that risks to people from work activities are properlyaddressed, taking due account of the benefits of the activities giving rise to the particular to satisfy the public that industry, in taking advantage of technologicaladvances and in responding to economic pressures, will not be allowed to imposeintolerable risks on people ; let other regulators, whose responsibilities may overlap with those of HSC/E,know the basis for the management of health and safety risks from work activitiesand thereby help to promote consistency of decision-making amongst regulators.

10 Inthis instance, consistency does not mean uniformity, it means the particularapplication of a coherent philosophy in a way suitable to the particular context. Mentions some of the difficulties inherent in meeting the above aims, particularlythose involved in taking account of ethical, social, economic and scientificconsiderations and the preference values of society at Introduces the concept of tolerability which is central to the document. This concept(explained in greater detail in Part 3) refers to a willingness to live with a risk so asto secure certain benefits. Points out that the proper regulation of risks requires that both the individual risksand societal concerns engendered by a hazard must be addressed. Part 2 Reviews some of the developments that have influenced our approach to decision-making since the HSW Act was enacted. The developments examined includeadvances in knowledge on how people view risks ; changes in the regulatoryenvironment and on the industrial scene; and shifts in the values, preferences andexpectations of our society.