Traumatisme

MANAGEMENT OF the RISK AND NORMALIZATION

From the cindynic idea of the existence of a transverse science of danger, to the standardisation of risk management systems, there used to be a gap that the Australian and Japanese standards organisations have now happily crossed !

These two countries indeed developed for several years the standards of systems of management of the risk transverses in the set(group) of the risks with which can be confronted a company. If these two standards (Japanese standard is still only a project and seems to meet oppositions in its country) presented the interest to formalize the concepts of the management of the risk, they were not it intended less to be the base of certifications. For Australia, objective was clearly to go towards less State by leaning on the normalization. For Japan, it seems that Kobé's earthquake put in light of the incapacities of the administrative tools of control of the industry and the means of help: appeal to the normalization was intended to fill the weaknesses of the Administration.

But, instead of keeping these two standards for national level, Australia and Japan wanted to accept them at the world level, in the CIS (Technical committee 56 ) for Australia, in the ISO for Japan.

Numerous countries of which France, Germany, the United States opposed then , successfully , to the generalization of these two standards transverses, leaning especially on the fact that they would have stacked certifications (always very expensive) in existing and already very demanding national or European rules (as the future Directive of 09/12/1996 concerning the mastery of dangers bound to major accidents implying dangerous substances, Directive called Seveso II). These certifications are, furthermore, delicate to make in the case of the management of certain risks as the social risk or the political risk which concern the c œ ur of the company. But the manufacturers of these countries were not opposite to sector-based or regional guides on the management of the risk such as it(he) exists there in numerous branches of industry. Canada so developed an entitled guide " Management of the risk: Directives for the decision-makers " (Canada did not particularly wish to pass him(it,her) at the level of the CIS or of the ISO) and the CIS develops a standard for the management of the risk in projects.

Situation was apparently blocked but Australian and Japanese projects had however made seem urgent required with a harmonization of the terminology, it would be only in the normative or informative documents published with the ISO and the CIS. A work already existed, drives(guides) ISO-CEI 51 him(it,her) " Aspects bound to the safety: guiding principles to include them in standards ".

A study group met so within the framework of the ISO from October, 1998 to establish a standard on the terminology of the risk bound for the editors of standards, by taking as model the Guide ISO-CEI 51. This group, in which participates actively France, decided to treat risk as being source of "losses" but also "earnings". The Australian " chairman " of this Group wishing to succeed quickly, a first project was elaborated in December, 1998 to be able to be sent from April, 1999 for comments to several dozens of Technical Committees of the ISO and the CIS as well as to organizations as the AIEA.

A Committee French Mirror of this Group was constituted within the framework of the AFNOR with the cooperation of the representatives of the Industry, the Administration or Bodies competent as the INERIS or the CNPP.

What is it necessary to expect from the production of this Study group?

What is it necessary to expect from the production of this Study group? The will of the chairman fast to to go should collide in the difficulty collecting on a consensus of numerous Technical Committees accustomed to their own terminology. The first version of the future standard risks so not to be completed and to be followed of quickly by a first revision. But all the participants of the Study group are persuaded that, even though it is only about a first step, this one must be made to simplify tomorrow the task of the editors of standards and so that of the manufacturers who use these standards.

A French Mirror Committee of this Group was set up in the context of AFNOR, with the participation of representatives of Industry, of the Administration and of competent organisations such INERIS or CNPP.

What is to be expected from the output of the Working Group? The Chairman's desire to go quickly is likely to run up against the difficulty of obtaining a consensus from the numerous Technical Committees that are each used to their own terminology. The first draft of the future standard is therefore likely to be imperfect and will be followed very quickly by a revision.

However, all the participants in the Working Group are convinced that, even though this is merely a first step, it was a step that needed to be taken in order to simplify the task of standards drafters and hence of the industries using these standards.

Christian MAILLARD

Gaz de France

Translation by Andrew WILES