From a presentation at
the Canadian Section meeting.
Inspections—Necessity
or Burden
There is a constant movement towards decreasing the cost of
doing business both in the private as well as the public
sector. This is not a new phenomenon but a mainstay of
operating a business effectively and efficiently. There are
costs for inspection programs that are a reality to an
industry: permits, time delays, notification process and the
inability to use new but safe technology. On the government
side there is a balancing act between expenditures and income.
Income equals taxes and no North American government wants to
increase taxation, including user fees. We are in a period of
reduced red tape and increased access to employment. The
demand for decreased costs has no sacred cows and now includes
all regulatory management systems. The reality is, your
inspection program will be reviewed for right sizing or
elimination. I am not an individual who likes to crawl on the
bandwagon for the latest flavour of the month, but in this
instance I have. Our salvation and not our destruction should
lie within the concept of a full risk management program. We
have a private sector demand to decrease costs and government’s
demand to balance a budget, with the regulatory system caught
in the middle. Safety must be paramount in our review
processes with all programs based upon a defined unacceptable
risk countered by a validated risk management process.
As inspectors we must be cautious not to
allow our positions on this issue to be based on subjective
reasoning. I once had a chief inspector berate me for even
suggesting that inspections could be decreased or altered in
scope. His reasoning, I believe, was based upon an opinion
that his previous efforts were being called in question. This
is certainly not my position, but I did come to realize that I
could no longer meet the Public Safety Division’s legislated
mandate solely through an inspection program.
What are the costs associated with
inspection programs? The one we all hear about is the cost of
meeting code requirements, especially when someone is caught
doing the wrong thing (they do not reveal that information).
We must be very cautious not to let this sector dictate what
the regulatory process will be. We have all read the headlines
of major and minor corporations who have not done the right
thing. Risk management does not include accepting companies or
individuals without proof of a commitment to public safety.
This may be a motherhood statement, but defending any
regulatory process must be based on objective proof and not
subjective arguments.
There Will Always
Be a Risk
How unsafe can this be? This question, though simple, is the
starting point for any safety program review. I will attempt
to state both sides of the equation—the uninformed manager
responsible for budgets and good order, and the long-term well
trained chief inspector.
In general the public today is extremely
safe from incidents and accidents in relation to the turn of
the 20th century. I often use the example of my
short period as a deep-sea fisherman, 35 years ago. An old
friend of the family taught me to pull up my hip boots if the
boat was about to sink, not to save me, but so I would drown
quickly and not suffer. Today, fishing boats are designed and
operated to provide the crewmen a high level of safety, even
in the perfect storm. Technology and inspections have created
an expectation that there is little or no risk in life today,
what most people do not realize is how we reached that
milestone. As a result, apathy about safety has evolved;
individuals increasingly believe they do not have a personal
responsibility for their own safety. In this environment of
individuals disregarding safety rules every day thus risking
their own and others’ lives, the argument over the right
level of regulatory management takes place.
The manager is informed that incidents are
at an all-time low, modern technology has eliminated all the
hazards, inspections have a low benefit and red tape is
preventing the economy from growing. The chief has spent 20–30
years building what he personally considers to be the best
system in the country, the number of violations found during
each inspection proves how incompetent everyone else is and
downsizing will decrease safety and will result in the
ruination of the safety system. Who is right?
The insurance industry learned long ago
that if the risk of payout was not properly measured, then
bankruptcy occurred either when claims were higher than income
or when premiums are overpriced. Public safety programs are
now at the same point, we have a responsibility to measure and
evaluate risk or face elimination. Not only do we have to
measure the risk, we must also define the best solution to
decrease the risk.
There are two standard measures for risk—probability
and impact—however, government officials see one more,
societal acceptance.
Probability should be the simplest equation
as it is based upon historical data. The problem is that we
depend upon the local night watchman to provide that data.
Electrical risk relates to three issues: loss of power and
finances, shock or electrocution, and fires. The first two
have been tracked very well through lawsuits and hospital or
coroners’ records. The third, as a fire official I am sorry
to say, is not so simple. I continue to ask the question. Is
the decrease in electrical fires related to better
installations or better-trained investigators? One headline
revealed that a Fire Marshal’s Office could not determine
the cause of a fire as the electricity had been disconnected.
We do know there is a risk with energized electrical
equipment; it is, after all, a source of energy that can kill,
injure and cause property damage unless it is properly built,
installed and used.
The second question is what will the impact
of an incident be? The fire in a shed caused by a homeowner
doing his own wiring will not have the same impact as a
negligent electrician wiring a self-serve service station. The
risk of an incident is higher with untrained persons than with
certified persons. The impact or cost is higher at some
locations than others. The possible electrocution from a
faulty GFI is greater than the inconvenience of a circuit
breaker that activates and has to be reset.
The third measurement is society’s
acceptance of the risk. The death of a child who puts a knife
in the socket has more impact than the marijuana grower
operator who is electrocuted while bypassing the meter. Try to
pass a law preventing the sale of electrical construction
material to anyone except a certified electrician. So even
within the measure of risk, we have certain caveats that
restrict our ability to objectively provide a solution.
Education,
Engineering and Enforcement
Once an unacceptable risk has been identified, we now have to
determine what is the most relevant means of decreasing the
risk. We must accept that we are the informed party, but not
necessarily the responsible party. Analysing the means of
decreasing unacceptable risk requires an open mind and an
objective process. I will use a couple of examples to attempt
to provide some flow to the information.
Risk does exist and the first question
should be, Can my agency’s activities prevent or even
decrease the probability that an incident will occur?
Individuals who steal power for drug operations are not
concerned with your regulations or safety programs. We may be
able to engineer a program that will identify increased power
flows, but we will not prevent the electrocution of someone
who is gambling that they can hook up to the main power lines.
We educate the electrician so as to prevent situations from
arising that will cause an electrocution created by a faulty
installation. We also educate the public to use electricity
properly. Advertisements were used to help decrease the number
of electrocutions caused by radios falling into the bathtub.
The first element of risk reduction is education.
We often think of engineering as being the
process for planning large projects; this, however, is a small
element of engineering. When electrical equipment is developed
there is a process that requires the product to meet certain
safety standards. The lower the standard of education for the
user the safer the product must be. The homeowner is
restricted to a plug which only enters the socket one way
while the engineer uses calculations to determine a safe
installation. We have even engineered the safety for
homeowners by replacing fuses with circuit breakers so as to
prevent over fusing. Education failed so we use ground-fault
interrupters in the bathroom to prevent electrocution.
Enforcement is a reactive response to the
situation. When I talk about enforcement I am referring to it
in the purest sense. The inspector who helps through education
or engineering during an inspection is not enforcing. Pure
enforcement holds people accountable for having done something
wrong. The police officer by being beside the road may prevent
accidents or speeding just by their presence. Once the blue
light comes on, police are in a reactionary mode. The lack of,
or improper installation of a GFI, could result in fines or a
lawsuit as a reactionary result.
So we have the three processes for
decreasing risk: education, engineering and enforcement. It is
important for us to remember that we have a responsibility to
use our resources wisely. I have often used the term over
control to describe some of our safety systems. The
increased safety that is engineered into a system or increased
education of trades persons and the public may have created
some redundancy in the safety system. We are responsible to
recognize where we can use one process—education—to offset
inspection frequency. A number of jurisdictions use education
and experience to set the inspection frequency for various
firms.
We must, however, be aware of other changes
to the education and engineering programs. There is a growing
labour shortage especially in the skilled trades and the
labour cost for certified personnel is growing. The demand to
require persons who are competent just for the activity they
are required to carry out is growing. Pulling wire and placing
connection boxes does not require a certified electrician,
according to these proponents. Computer cabling was once the
realm of the electrician; more and more of this work is being
done by computer cabling specialists. The major safety issue
with cabling is not the installation, but the removal of the
replaced materials.
The equipment certification process is
under review to determine if it is a trade barrier and if it
is cost effective. We in North America have come to rely on
the CSA and UL labels to inform us that the electrical
products we purchase are safe. There are a number of different
programs related to product acceptance used throughout the
world and each one works within its own environment. These
include a supplier’s declaration of conformity, product
testing by third parties, an engineer’s stamp for
commissioning, or buyers beware. Each program is a valuable
element for risk reduction if the environment within which
they operate provides the right supports. For North America,
we have a proven track record for regulated certification and
testing programs. The cost is borne by the consumer as part of
the purchase price. Other systems include costs for
professional buyers and more government enforcement costs.
Society in Europe has an expectation that corporations or
individuals who do not ensure safety will be held accountable.
Both the US and Canada have recently passed legislation
holding corporations to a higher standard for their actions.
We cannot simply say that one works better than the other but
we must always review the full environment within which any
safety system functions.
We have all noticed what occurs over time
when police officers are not visible on the highways. There is
a need for a visible and active enforcement program that is
based upon accountability.
The danger is not that a decrease in
effectiveness of the risk management program will come about
by a decrease in inspections but that all three factors,
education, engineering and enforcement, may be decreased to a
level where a new unacceptable risk is created.
This warning is not to prevent us from
using risk management concepts to address safety but to
indicate to you that any program must be continually reviewed
and altered. Databases of problems are critical to evaluating
products or processes, but make sure the information is
validated. Product certification is useless unless you
participate by helping to remove products that you found to be
unsafe and take part in the certification approval process.
Providing a validated level of educational requirements to
carry out a task is one thing, ignoring the role that trained
technicians have in the safety system is another.
In summary, we have a choice to quantify
and qualify what we are doing and adjust our regulatory
program or have it done for us. Risk management is not the
enemy, but one of the tools we have at our disposal to provide
a fair and equitable regulatory program. The program must be
flexible enough to respond to trends and new technology but
firm enough to ensure the public safety system addresses
unacceptable risks and meets society’s reasonable
expectations.
Robert J. Cormier, B. Comm., is
director public safety/fire marshal, Province of Nova
Scotia. |
